Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem’s latest speech has drawn criticism across the Lebanese political spectrum, with opponents describing his remarks as contradictory and more reassuring to Israel than to Lebanese citizens.
They argued that by insisting on retaining Hezbollah’s weapons and rejecting government decisions, Qassem directed threats internally - toward the Lebanese state - rather than at Israel.
Qassem, speaking amid rising pressure on Hezbollah, asserted that the ceasefire agreement applies only to areas south of the Litani River and insisted that Israel must withdraw and release prisoners.
He declared that there is no danger to the northern settlements, a comment that undermined Lebanese officials’ ongoing attempts to negotiate with Israel ahead of implementing the November agreement.
Ministerial sources close to the Lebanese presidency expressed confusion over Qassem’s remarks, asking whether they reflected “disorder or deliberate ambiguity.”
They noted that claiming Israel’s northern settlements are safe signals Hezbollah’s unwillingness to respond to Israeli violations.
They said this raises a fundamental question: why reject President Joseph Aoun’s initiative to negotiate new border arrangements and stabilize the south? They argued that Hezbollah should prioritize reassuring Lebanese citizens living under daily Israeli threats, rather than offering implicit reassurance to Israeli residents.
The sources also questioned why Hezbollah insists on retaining weapons north of the Litani and what purpose they would serve. They pointed to contradictions in Qassem’s speech, particularly his insistence that the situation “cannot continue,” while simultaneously maintaining that Hezbollah will keep its weapons regardless of government decisions.
Qassem criticized the government for allegedly failing to protect citizens and for “listening to American dictates.” In response, ministerial sources countered that it is the government’s prerogative to make decisions and the responsibility of all parties, including Hezbollah, to implement them.
Despite Aoun’s repeated declarations that Lebanon is ready to negotiate with Israel, Hezbollah continues to reject any suggestion of talks, insisting that Lebanon must not be “dragged” into negotiations. Qassem reaffirmed that Hezbollah “will not abandon its weapons,” which he described as essential for defense.
Qassem also urged the government to adopt a clear timeline to restore sovereignty, warning that the crisis in the south will eventually affect the entire country.
Ministerial sources agreed on the need for a sovereignty plan but stressed that Hezbollah refuses to implement the existing government policy, which stipulates that all weapons must be held exclusively by the state. They noted that Hezbollah itself endorsed this policy when it granted confidence to the government.
The Kataeb Party accused Qassem of reassuring Israel “more than the Lebanese people,” pointing out that he expressed readiness to keep the area south of the Litani free of weapons while refusing to disarm north of the river. “What, then, is the purpose of these weapons?” Kataeb asked, arguing that Hezbollah’s threats now target the Lebanese state rather than Israel.
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea also challenged Qassem’s claims, noting that UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the 27 November agreement require the Lebanese state to extend its authority over all territory and mandates the disarmament of all armed groups.
He reminded Qassem that the Lebanese cabinet’s August 2025 decision reaffirmed Lebanon’s commitment to the Taif Agreement, the Constitution, and the gradual elimination of all non-state weapons, including Hezbollah’s, across the entire country.
