After Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel, the specter of escalation once again loomed over Lebanon—particularly following Israel’s swift response, which included airstrikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs and other areas, accompanied by threats to make Hezbollah pay a “heavy price.”
Amid this rapidly unfolding scene, the Lebanese government found itself facing a decisive test. On Monday, it announced a decision banning any military or security activity by Hezbollah on Lebanese territory and obligating it to surrender its weapons. The move aims to reaffirm the principle that arms must be held exclusively by the state and to shield Lebanon from the repercussions of a conflict it cannot afford to join.
The decision—described by its supporters as “historic” and “bold”—opened the door to wide political debate. While some viewed it as belated and insufficient given the current challenges, others saw it as the long-awaited beginning of a corrective course, provided it is followed by clear implementation steps.
In this charged atmosphere, members of parliament who spoke to Alhurra expressed diverging views: some questioned the government’s ability to translate its decision into action, raised concerns about its timing and feasibility, and called for swift adoption of clear enforcement mechanisms to ensure the decision does not remain ink on paper.
“Act of Terrorism”
MP Cynthia Zarazir described Hezbollah’s rocket fire as a “terrorist act,” saying the party had “once again entangled Lebanon and dragged its people into a crisis that will be extremely difficult to escape.”
In remarks to Alhurra, Zarazir criticized the government’s decision to ban Hezbollah’s military and security activities and compel it to surrender its weapons as “weak and exceedingly timid.” She argued it “should have been more decisive in addressing the terrorist acts that implicate Lebanon and should not be limited to the party’s military wing but also include its political wing, with accountability for everyone involved in bringing the country to this stage.”
She added that the decision should have been issued earlier and aligned with the ministerial statement and the presidential oath of office, “rather than being left to the last moment.”
She concluded: “I believe it is too late. Attempts at clever maneuvering are no longer useful. The government could have been wiser and avoided a new humanitarian catastrophe for Lebanon, but unfortunately that did not happen.”
While this position viewed the decision as overdue and insufficient, another approach emerged within parliament arguing that—even if delayed—the government has finally laid the groundwork for tangible action on the ground.
Political Cover for the Army
MP Dr. Najat Aoun described the government’s decision as “bold,” saying it put an end to any security or military role the party might play outside the framework of the state and stripped it of the justifications it had relied on to retain its weapons.
She told Alhurra that the decision provides the Lebanese Army with clear political cover to begin implementing disarmament north of the Litani River, after completing what it was able to accomplish south of it. She indicated that this political backing would strengthen the military institution’s ability to act decisively should Hezbollah refuse to hand over its arms.
In the same context, Aoun criticized Hezbollah for launching rockets from Lebanese territory despite repeated warnings from President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam against dragging the country into war. She described the rocket fire as “brazen,” stressing that the party “acts according to Iranian directives without regard for the consequences or the devastating repercussions for Lebanon.”
She emphasized that the majority of Lebanese have clearly expressed their rejection of the continuation of this situation and called for a definitive end to any security or military activity outside state authority.
If Aoun focused on the importance of political backing for the army and implementation mechanisms, another reading went further, describing the decision as a pivotal moment redefining the boundaries of authority and sovereignty.
“A Historic Decision”
MP Ghada Ayoub, a member of the Strong Republic bloc, said the government’s decision “consolidates the principle that arms must be exclusively in the hands of the state and imposes a clear, unequivocal ban on Hezbollah’s military and security activities across all Lebanese territory.” She stressed that the issue is no longer about south or north of the Litani, but about how the decision will be implemented.
In remarks to Alhurra, Ayoub explained that attention now turns to how the Lebanese Army and other security and military agencies will move to implement this “historic decision,” both at the security and judicial levels. She said the next phase “requires raids and weapons seizures, preventing any transfer or reconstruction of the military arsenal, confronting any attempt to launch rockets or carry out security operations from Lebanese territory outward, and imposing penalties on those who issued orders and those who executed them.”
Asked whether it was too late, Ayoub said the government had previously tried to “let reason prevail” with a Lebanese component, but facts proved that “this component is financially and organizationally tied to Iran and does not take orders from the Lebanese state.”
She argued that the decision should have been taken and implemented in 1991, noting that with the fall of successive tutelages over Lebanon—from the Assad regime to the Khamenei regime—the factors that once provided political or regional cover for the party have dissipated.
Neutrality First
MP Wael Abu Faour, a member of the Democratic Gathering bloc, limited his comment to telling Alhurra: “Walid Bey has spoken, and we stand by his statement.”
Former head of the Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt, had earlier called in a post on the platform X for Lebanon to remain neutral amid the “massive confrontation unfolding in the region,” saying that rocket launches “will bring nothing but further ruin and destruction,” and calling for solidarity with the Lebanese Army.
In a press statement, Jumblatt said that “Naim Qassem is acting on Iranian orders at Lebanon’s expense,” and described the government’s decision as “excellent.”
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
