Alwaght- Due to its complicated political and military history, Lebanon has always been subject of foreign and home threats and security has always been one of the most important obsessions of the country. Just contrary to other countries that the army is responsible for dealing with foreign threats, in Lebanon Hezbollah undertakes this job and this popular resistance movement has managed to secure a special place in protecting national security as a defender of the country. This role remains a thorn in the back of the enemies of Beirut and they are struggling to undermine or eliminate this movement at any cost.
Therefore, the Israeli-Western alliance has forced the Lebanese government through economic and political pressures to approve Hezbollah disarming plan. As part of these efforts, the government and army have recently approved resolutions to fast meet the Western demands, disregarding the consequences of the disarming on the nation's security and stability.
Contrary to the stance of the government and military, which view disarming Hezbollah as a solution to the country's political deadlock, new polling indicates a significant portion of the Lebanese public supports preserving the movement's military capabilities, seeing them as a guarantee of national security.
This stark divide between popular opinion and official policy has ignited a fresh crisis within Lebanon's political and security spheres.
What do the polls say?
A survey by Information International, a Beirut-based research firm, shows that 58 percent of Lebanese oppose Hezbollah handing over its weapons as long as there are no guarantees for the withdrawal of the Israeli regime from occupied positions in southern Lebanon or a halt to its ongoing aggressions.
The highest opposition to surrendering weapons without guarantees was recorded among Shia respondents (96.3 percent), followed by Druze (59.3 percent) and Maronites (44.5 percent). When asked if Hezbollah might hand over its weapons without real guarantees, 81.4 percent of respondents stated it would not do so unless such assurances were secured first.
Since, according to a government-approved resolution, the army is responsible for collecting Hezbollah's weapons, the government appears to be positioning the military against the movement—a move that could trigger civil war. This decision reflects a disregard for the widespread demands and concerns of the Lebanese people, who see Hezbollah as a security guarantee for the country. Ignoring public opinion on such a critical issue not only threatens internal stability but also undermines citizens' trust in the government and security institutions.
Berri and army's proposal
As Lebanon struggles to move out of a deepening political and security crisis, its political leaders are advancing parallel initiatives aimed at prioritizing national interests over what they describe as foreign agendas, countering proposals put forth by the government and army.
In this vein, parliament speaker Nabih Berri recently condemned a US-backed proposal as contrary to the nation's interests. He asserted, "what is suggested in the American document goes beyond the principle of arms control and appears to be a substitute for the November ceasefire agreement." Berri implicitly proposed a solution that would integrate the issue of weapons monopoly within a broader national defense strategy to regulate it.
Defending Hezbollah's role, Berri stated that the resistance movement "has liberated land and people, and preserved dignity and national sovereignty." He emphasized that "we reiterate our readiness to engage in calm, consensus-based dialogue under the constitution's umbrella to discuss the fate of these weapons, which are a source of pride for us as Lebanon. We are nothing but advocates of unity and cooperation, and it is only with this spirit, through constitutional conduct and the acceptance of national responsibility without compromising our fixed principles, that we can protect Lebanon."
The core of Berri's argument is that US-backed ceasefire proposals from last year remain unimplemented and cannot simply be replaced by a new plan. The original truce was agreed upon during wartime, a context that forced Israel to concede to some of Lebanon's demands. Now, he argues, political and diplomatic pressure is being used to dictate one-sided terms to Beirut. From Berri's perspective, any alteration to the existing agreement without firm security guarantees and respect for Lebanon's rights could jeopardize regional stability.
Nabih Berri’s alternative framework underscores significant ambiguities in the government and army’s recent proposals, asserting that fundamental issues must be resolved before any national consensus can be achieved.
The army's plan for consolidating weapons under state authority lacks a clear timeline and outlines five vague phases for gradually restricting arms outside government control. Crucially, the military would retain sole discretion over how and when to operate in different regions based on its own operational capacities—a point raising concerns over transparency and implementation.
The proposal emphasizes strengthening the army’s military presence and checkpoints across various regions to prevent weapons transfers and smuggling, securing the Lebanon-Syria border, and shutting down illegal crossing points. Yet it remains silent on critical procedural and political details.
A major point of contention is Hezbollah’s extensive and diverse arsenal, accumulated since its founding. It remains entirely unclear which weapons would be subject to handover, and whether they would be transferred to the Lebanese army or—as feared by many—destroyed at the behest of Tel Aviv and Washington. Such a scenario, critics warn, could severely undermine Lebanese national security and sovereignty rather than strengthening it.
Israel's aggressive performance
The Lebanese people's emphasis on security guarantees is an outcome of a number of factors and historical experiences thar highlight security concerns and the necessity to strengthen the nation's defense power.
Throughout its more than seven decades of existence, the Israeli regime has repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for its international agreements, launching attacks on regional nations at will. The prolonged occupation of southern Lebanon and repeated aerial assaults against Lebanese and Syrian territories bear witness to this unilateral behavior.
From the perspective of many Lebanese citizens, this history means that without credible and enforceable security guarantees, the state and its army cannot be relied upon to protect the nation against potential aggression. There is a widespread belief that, in the absence of such guarantees, disarming Hezbollah would effectively eliminate Lebanon’s only proven line of defense against the threat of occupation.
Over the past four decades, Hezbollah has played a unique role in Lebanon's national security landscape. Facing an adversary superior in equipment, technology, and military experience, the group has utilized guerrilla tactics, strategic weaponry, and popular support to thwart Israeli offensive actions. This has allowed it to establish a form of deterrence that is perceived by its supporters as both effective and indispensable to Lebanon's sovereignty.
Powerless army does not serve people
The Lebanese argue that Hezbollah has not only countered the direct Israeli aggression, but also it has raised costs of any possible attack for the enemy by setting up deterrence. But, the Lebanese army has never managed to play a role to check the enemy aggression.
Lebanon's army has been consistently hampered by political interference and economic constraints, leaving it without the real capacity to confront external threats. Analysts contend that the West has deliberately kept the institution weak to prevent it from becoming a direct challenger to Tel Aviv. The result is a force that functions more as a domestic security agency than a full-fledged military, unable to independently secure the country's defense.
Public polling analysis indicates that many Lebanese citizens view Hezbollah not merely as a political faction but as the nation's essential security guarantee. This perception has developed not only strategic but also psychological dimensions, with people relying on the group's proven record of practical defense.
Throughout its operations, from liberating southern Lebanon to other conflicts, Hezbollah has consistently framed its actions as protecting national security and territorial integrity, rather than advancing narrow partisan interests. This has led many Lebanese to conclude that the movement prioritizes national interests and plays an effective role in ensuring the country's security and stability.
For these citizens, the core issue is not who holds the weapons, but is maintaining credible deterrence against a hostile adversary. They remain acutely aware that disarming Hezbollah would not automatically strengthen the national army—particularly given the West's demonstrated unwillingness to genuinely build up Lebanon's official military capabilities.
History has proven that international promises are inadequate and without a force practically capable of deterring foreign aggression, national security is unachievable, and this belief is the basis for widespread popular Lebanese opposition to any disarming of Hezbollah.
This said, the Lebanese policy-makers should take into consideration the historical realities, structural weaknesses of the army, and the popular view of Hezbollah in their decision on disarming the movement, since any action without security guarantees can put Lebanon in a position of vulnerability, with severe consequences expected not only to the national security but also to the home social and political stability.
