Since the ceasefire reached with Israel in November 2024, Hezbollah has shown a striking shift in its political conduct, particularly in how it deals with Lebanese state institutions.
A group long used to operating outside official channels is now, despite its escalatory rhetoric, shifting responsibility to the state on issues ranging from Lebanese prisoners held by Israel and postwar reconstruction to indirect negotiations with Tel Aviv.
Since the ceasefire, Hezbollah has also refrained from responding militarily to Israel, with no direct action recorded, in clear contrast to its traditional discourse built around retaliation and deterrence.
At the same time, the group continues to reject any discussion of handing over its weapons. It has launched a campaign against officials who have spoken about restricting arms to the state north of the Litani River.
This was evident in remarks by Mohammed Raad, head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, following his meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Wednesday, after tensions had surfaced between the two sides over recent statements by the president urging the group to act with restraint.
While Raad did not address the issue of weapons during his remarks at the presidential palace, he reiterated Hezbollah’s stance of placing responsibility on the state regarding liberation, prisoners, and reconstruction.
He said the group was committed to understanding and cooperation to achieve the goals of all Lebanese, starting with ending the occupation, securing the release of prisoners, strengthening stability, enabling residents to return to their homes and villages, launching reconstruction efforts, and having the state assume responsibility for protecting sovereignty, with Hezbollah supporting it when necessary, while rejecting all forms of intervention and tutelage.
This approach is also reflected in Hezbollah’s meetings with Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to hand over lists of Lebanese prisoners and explicitly call on the state to take full responsibility for the issue. This practice was not typical of the group in previous phases.
Contradiction and confusion
Sources close to the presidency declined to comment on Raad’s remarks or assess the meeting with Aoun, telling Asharq Al-Awsat that there was an apparent contradiction and confusion in Hezbollah’s behavior and positions. At the same time, everyone awaited the outcome of US-Iranian negotiations.
They said what was happening amounted to buying time, and that the state was not a menu from which responsibilities could be selectively chosen.
They said Hezbollah wanted the state to shoulder responsibility for all outstanding issues, which was indeed the state’s duty, even though the group had launched its support front without consulting it and continued to reject the implementation of state decisions. They described Hezbollah officials as lacking clarity in defining their objectives.
Clear incapacity
Opposition political analyst Ali al-Amin described Hezbollah’s behavior, combining escalatory rhetoric with rejection of disarmament while demanding the state resolve outstanding issues, as a clear expression of its inability to respond to repeated Israeli strikes, including killings and destruction.
Amin told Asharq Al-Awsat that Hezbollah was also attempting to transfer the consequences of the war to the state, channeling the complaints of displaced and affected citizens toward state institutions, as if to say the matter was the state’s responsibility, while ignoring what was required of it in terms of handing over its weapons.
He said that when the discussion turns to the role of the state, weapons are framed in terms of dignity and honor, but when it comes to bearing burdens, citizens are told the state is responsible.
Despite this, Amin said Hezbollah had succeeded to some extent in shifting these burdens, noting that it had not paid housing compensation, issued checks that were not honored, and that citizens were now being told the state would pay instead.
At the same time, the group had not carried out any response against Israel, raising a question it avoided answering: whether it no longer wanted to fight Israel.
Confusion and mutual benefit
Amin said Hezbollah was seeking to reduce the cost of confrontation and transfer the burden to the state without abandoning its tools or strategic options.
He said the group wanted to preserve the current situation, with ongoing Israeli attacks used to justify retaining weapons. At the same time, Israel benefits from their continued presence to strengthen its leverage and impose conditions on Lebanon later.
He added that Lebanon was facing a state of confusion: no fighting, no resistance, no liberation, only a continued insistence on retaining arms whose remaining function was unclear, except as an Israeli pretext for further attacks and for weakening the Lebanese state.
