As Lebanese and Israeli officials engage in U.S.-mediated negotiations, Lebanon’s military court has sentenced activist Joumana Jabbara and writer and academic Dr. Ahmad Yassin in absentia to 15 years in prison over statements and positions related to Israel.
The rulings, which also stripped both defendants of their civil rights, have reignited debate over the trial of civilians before military courts and the judiciary’s role in cases involving political expression. Critics say the convictions underscore a contradiction between the prosecution of individuals accused of communicating with Israel and the Lebanese state’s simultaneous participation in negotiations with the country.
The case against Jabbara stems from a social media post in which she reportedly praised Israeli military spokesman Avichay Adraee and thanked him for strikes against Hezbollah positions while expressing support for peace with Israel. Adraee publicly responded to the post, thanking her for her remarks in November 2024, according to Lebanese media reports.
The charges against Yassin were based on a video he published in late 2024 discussing the ancient ruins of Baalbek after an Israeli airstrike near the site damaged the historic Al-Manshiyah building.
Yassin told Alhurra that the video did not call for targeting the archaeological complex. Rather, he said it criticized former Culture Minister Mohammad Wissam Mortada for removing the United Nations’ Blue Shield emblem from the Baalbek ruins, warning that military activity around the site could expose it to danger.
In the video, Yassin also discussed Hezbollah’s 2009 “True Promise” exhibition inside the fortress, where Israeli weapons and equipment captured following Israel’s withdrawal in 2000 were displayed. He argued that the exhibition militarized the historic site. He said he never claimed military tunnels existed beneath the fortress, only that ancient Roman tunnels had been used to display the equipment.
A “Sword Hanging Over Opponents”
Yassin described the case as politically motivated, saying that “the military court has become a sword hanging over the necks of Hezbollah’s opponents.” He added that despite his publicly known residence in France, he never received an official court summons.
Jabbara also criticized the military court in a post on X, alleging that it operates under Hezbollah’s influence. She said she was prosecuted for praising Adraee and describing him as having evolved “from an enemy into an icon for broad segments of society.” She stressed that she had never communicated with him privately and that everything she wrote was public and deliberate. She also reaffirmed her support for peace between Lebanon and Israel.
For years, Lebanon’s military court has faced criticism over its authority to prosecute civilians.
Widad Jarbou, a researcher at the SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom, told Alhurra that demands have long persisted to limit the military court’s jurisdiction to military personnel and ensure that civilians are tried before ordinary civilian courts.
International organizations, including Human Rights Watch, have repeatedly called for an end to civilian trials before military courts, arguing that they are often used “as a tool of intimidation or retaliation against political speech and activism.”
Handling the “Israel File”
The controversy extends beyond the military court itself and touches on the broader question of how the Lebanese state deals with Israel.
Human rights lawyer Diala Shehadeh said the convictions of Jabbara and Yassin were not based on Lebanon’s boycott law against Israel, which governs economic and commercial relations, but rather on provisions of the penal code concerning crimes against state security, including support for the enemy or incitement to commit crimes against the state.
Shehadeh noted that the penal code does not explicitly mention Israel but instead refers to “the enemy,” defined as any state in a condition of hostility or war with Lebanon.
Former military court commissioner Judge Peter Germanos argued that since 1990, Lebanese law has come to treat Israel not merely as a security or diplomatic issue but as part of “an entire ideological system.”
Germanos told Alhurra that Lebanon effectively merged the 1950s boycott law against Israel, the expanded concept of terrorism that emerged in exceptional legislation after the 1958 crisis, provisions of the penal code concerning dealings with the enemy, and the jurisdiction of the military court to produce a legal doctrine in which any contact with Israel or an Israeli is considered inherently prohibited rather than simply unlawful.
“The question is no longer whether actual harm occurred, whether criminal intent existed, or whether there was security cooperation,” Germanos said. “Instead, the question has become whether contact took place, whether a taboo was broken, and whether an individual challenged the state’s official narrative.” He argued that the military court has become an instrument for enforcing that doctrine.
The Paradox of Negotiations
The debate has grown more complicated because the convictions coincide with Lebanon’s own direct negotiations with Israel.
Jarbou argued that the core problem lies in “the absence of consistency between political reality and the existing legal framework.” She said the issue is not about equating the actions of private citizens with those of the state, whose sovereign responsibilities differ fundamentally, but rather about the need for a clear and coherent legal framework that leaves no room for ambiguity or conflicting interpretations.
Shehadeh likewise stressed the importance of distinguishing between negotiation, communication and collaboration. Lebanon’s constitution, she noted, authorizes the president, with government approval, to negotiate and conclude international agreements, a power that is legally distinct from private individuals communicating with Israel.
Politically, lawmaker Mark Daou described the convictions as “not justice but intimidation.”
For his part, Adraee pointed to what he called “double standards” in the treatment of Hezbollah supporters and its opponents.
The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of longstanding allegations of political interference in Lebanon’s judiciary, including criticism over repeated visits by Hezbollah official Wafiq Safa to the Palace of Justice before Justice Minister Adel Nassar pledged to put an end to such practices.
Yassin said he is considering seeking legal recourse in French courts to challenge the proceedings and may file lawsuits against the military court, the former culture minister and others involved in the case.
Jarbou argued that safeguarding freedom of expression requires strengthening judicial independence and revising legal provisions that allow peaceful expression to be criminalized or interpreted so broadly.
Although the trial has concluded, the issues it raised extend well beyond the convictions themselves. The central question is no longer simply the fate of Jabbara and Yassin, but whether Lebanon’s legal system is capable of adapting to a political reality evolving faster than the laws that continue to govern it.
Adapted and translated from the original Arabic.
Alhurra
