A recent proposal circulating in Lebanon that would allow Hezbollah to retain its light weapons while surrendering heavy and medium arms has triggered widespread political backlash, with critics warning it poses a grave threat to state sovereignty and public safety.
The suggestion, floated amid long-running debate over the group’s arsenal, argues that other political parties and armed groups also possess light weapons for various reasons. But key political factions have rejected the idea outright, citing Lebanon’s bloody past and the potential for renewed violence.
Opponents of the proposal have pointed to the events of May 7, 2008, when Hezbollah fighters overran parts of Beirut and Mount Lebanon in a show of military force, underscoring the dangers of allowing any non-state group to keep arms.
“Classifying weapons as heavy, medium or light is useless,” said Kataeb Party leader Sami Gemayel in a post on X. “If heavy arms threaten Lebanon’s regional security, light weapons are even more dangerous to the foundations of the state.”
Gemayel reiterated that only the Lebanese army and legitimate security forces should bear arms, calling for the country to be entirely free of weapons held by non-state actors.
MP Ghada Ayoub, of the Lebanese Forces-led "Strong Republic" bloc, echoed that view, insisting the state must assert full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory and outlaw any form of armed presence outside the official security apparatus.
“There is only one armed group operating outside the state, and that is Hezbollah,” Ayoub told Asharq al-Awsat. “It must become a purely political party and clearly, unequivocally declare an end to its military activity.”
Ayoub also criticized recent remarks by Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, who vowed the group’s “resistance” would continue “without asking anyone’s permission.”
“The Lebanese state is responsible for enforcing a monopoly on the use of arms,” she said. “It must stop playing the role of a mediator or hiding behind the fear of war and internal strife. Time is not on Lebanon’s side.”
Ahmad Al-Kheir, a lawmaker with the “National Moderation” bloc, dismissed the proposal as “stillborn,” warning that light weapons have already been used to intimidate citizens and skew political dynamics.
“We saw yesterday how light arms were paraded through Beirut’s streets in a blatant attempt at provocation and coercion,” he said. “This is the real danger - using these weapons as leverage in political life, as we saw in the May 7 events and the occupation of downtown Beirut.”
“No one in Lebanon will accept this,” Al-Kheir added.
Additionally, critics warn that allowing any non-state entity to retain weapons threatens state authority and risks further destabilizing the country.
Al-Kheir urged Hezbollah and any other party in possession of light weapons to hand them over to the state, citing the recent example set by former Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) leader Walid Jumblatt.
“Jumblatt announced that his party had surrendered its weapons weeks ago. This is the model to follow,” he told Asharq al-Awsat.
MP Waddah Al-Sadek, of the Change Coalition, said he had no objection to a phased disarmament process that begins with heavy and medium weapons, followed by light arms. He dismissed fears of civil war, saying only one side is armed.
“Armed conflict requires two sides. The army will not engage in internal fighting,” he said. “This talk of civil war is just fear-mongering unless Hezbollah resorts again to something like the May 7 scenario to avoid disarming.”
Al-Sadek stressed that Lebanon’s response to the US proposal - reportedly outlining phased disarmament - will be critical. “Does anyone really have an alternative to engaging with this proposal?” he asked.
Deputy head of the Free Patriotic Movement, Naji Hayek, said all weapons must be handed over, rejecting the idea that civilians or political groups should be allowed to keep light arms for self-defense.
“This theory no longer holds,” Hayek told Asharq al-Awsat, adding that training camps used to militarize society should be shut down. “Light and medium weapons are not only with Hezbollah - they exist with other parties that have military structures, and these too must be dismantled.”
Political analyst Qassem Qassir, who is close to Hezbollah’s thinking, said there is no internal consensus, nor any agreement with Hezbollah, to give up its heavy and medium arms while retaining light weapons.
“The party insists the issue is still the Israeli occupation and ongoing aggression,” he said. “For Hezbollah, no discussion on disarmament is possible until those threats end.”
Qassir warned that if a political solution to the weapons issue is not reached, “we will inevitably face military risks and internal conflict.”
Jumblatt announced in late June that his party had handed over its remaining weapons, including light and medium arms that were gradually accumulated after the May 7 clashes in 2008 during a period of heightened tension with Hezbollah.
He said the weapons had been centrally stored and fully turned over to the Lebanese state.
