A new controversy has erupted in Lebanon over the future of Palestinian arms in refugee camps, after “Palestinian factions in Lebanon” issued a statement rejecting the surrender of weapons in Beirut’s Burj al-Barajneh camp.
The declaration came in response to a recent handover of weapons by Fatah, and sparked debate at a time when Lebanese politics is increasingly divided over restricting arms to the state. Analysts say the refusal appears designed to link Palestinian weapons to Hezbollah’s arsenal.
The government earlier this month took a landmark decision to impose state monopoly over arms, demanding the disarmament of all armed groups, including Hezbollah
Hesham Dibsi, Director of the Tatwir Center for Studies, told Asharq Al-Awsat that the “factions’” statement projected itself as a “unified Palestinian position,” but in reality reflected the stance of Islamist factions such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and groups outside the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
He argued that invoking the term “Palestinian factions” created the false impression of PLO endorsement.
He warned that the move dangerously aligned camp weapons with Lebanon’s internal political struggle.
“It attempts to mirror Hezbollah’s justification for its arsenal, framing the weapons as part of the resistance and tied to the right of return — just as Hezbollah links its weapons to liberating Jerusalem,” he said.
In his view, the statement effectively offered Hezbollah political cover to resist the government’s plan to monopolize arms under the state, undermining Lebanon’s efforts ensure its sovereignty.
Dibsi cautioned that the stance risks prolonging Palestinian divisions within Lebanon and placing camps in a constant state of tension. Without serious engagement, he added, the development could derail the government’s disarmament plan and serve Hezbollah’s regional agenda.
While Fatah agreed to surrender some weapons, other factions — regardless of affiliation with the PLO — opposed the move. Some linked their refusal to Palestinians’ civil rights in Lebanon, others to security concerns and the principle of resistance.
Palestinian legal expert Fouad Baker described the statement as “a warning”, reflecting fears that the camps may be dragged into schemes that threaten the right of return.
Palestinian weapons in Lebanon fall into three categories: arms tied to the conflict with Israel and influenced by regional dynamics (held by Hamas and Islamic Jihad); weapons coordinated by the PLO with the Lebanese state; and uncontrolled arms in the hands of criminals and traffickers, he explained.
Baker noted the paradox: “If the PLO hands over its weapons, what remains are the uncontrolled weapons of criminals, which is dangerous for both Palestinians and Lebanese.”
He also pointed to Lebanese lawsuits seeking the recovery of land occupied by expanding camps, warning of “a disguised displacement plan.”
In his view, Lebanon rejects both the Palestinians’ naturalization and permanent settlement, but its current approach risks pushing Palestinians toward forced displacement, while the Palestinians themselves reject both paths in order to preserve their right of return.
