In a powerful statement issued on Saturday, September 13, 2025, Hassan Ezzedine, a prominent Lebanese lawmaker and member of the Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc, which represents the political wing of Hezbollah, strongly defended the necessity of the resistance movement’s weapons. Ezzedine argued that calls for Hezbollah’s disarmament are not only misguided but also play directly into the hands of the Zionist regime, furthering its alleged expansionist ambitions in the region. His remarks come at a time of heightened regional tensions, with Lebanon navigating complex internal and external challenges, including ongoing security threats and geopolitical rivalries.
Ezzedine’s comments reflect the deeply rooted belief among Hezbollah’s supporters that the group’s military capabilities are indispensable for safeguarding Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He emphasized that Hezbollah’s arsenal serves as a critical deterrent against external aggression, particularly from Israel, which he accused of harboring expansionist designs. The lawmaker’s remarks also underscored the intricate interplay between Lebanon’s domestic politics, regional conflicts, and the broader struggle for power in the Middle East.
Hezbollah’s Role in Lebanon’s Security Framework
Hezbollah, a Shiite political and military organization, has long been a polarizing force in Lebanese politics. Established in the early 1980s during Lebanon’s civil war and in response to Israel’s invasion of the country, Hezbollah has evolved from a guerrilla movement into a formidable political and military entity. Its dual role as both a resistance organization and a mainstream political party has made it a central player in Lebanon’s complex socio-political landscape.
Ezzedine highlighted the synergy between Hezbollah’s military wing and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in confronting shared threats, particularly Takfiri militant groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS) and other extremist factions. These groups, he argued, pose an existential threat to Lebanon’s stability and security. According to Ezzedine, Hezbollah’s military capabilities have been instrumental in supporting the LAF’s efforts to combat terrorism, particularly along Lebanon’s volatile eastern border with Syria, where extremist groups have historically sought to establish footholds.
“The Lebanese army has benefited immensely from the capabilities of the resistance in confronting Takfiri militant groups,” Ezzedine stated. “These terrorist outfits are not just a threat to Lebanon but are tools used to destabilize the region and create a security crisis that serves external agendas.”
This collaboration between Hezbollah and the LAF, while controversial, has been acknowledged in various instances. For example, during the 2017 battle to expel ISIS from the Qalamoun region along the Lebanon-Syria border, Hezbollah’s coordinated operations with the LAF were credited with securing a decisive victory. Ezzedine’s remarks reinforce the narrative that Hezbollah’s military strength complements, rather than undermines, Lebanon’s national defense apparatus.
The Disarmament Debate: A Threat to National Sovereignty?
The issue of Hezbollah’s weapons has been a contentious topic in Lebanese politics for decades. Critics, including some domestic political factions and international actors, argue that Hezbollah’s parallel military structure undermines the authority of the Lebanese state, which, according to the country’s constitution, should hold a monopoly on the use of force. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, explicitly calls for the disarmament of all non-state militias in Lebanon, a provision widely interpreted as targeting Hezbollah.
However, Ezzedine dismissed such calls as not only impractical but also dangerous. “The demands for Hezbollah’s disarmament are a deliberate attempt to strip Lebanon of its ability to defend itself,” he declared. “The equation is simple: Disarmament would pave the way for a new ground invasion, one that aligns with the Zionist regime’s expansionist intentions.”
Ezzedine drew parallels with the situation in Syria, where he claimed that the weakening of state and non-state actors opposed to Israel’s interests had facilitated foreign interventions and territorial encroachments. “What happened in Syria is a clear example,” he said. “When a nation is stripped of its defensive capabilities, it becomes vulnerable to external aggression and occupation.”
This reference to Syria alludes to the complex dynamics of the Syrian civil war, where Hezbollah has played a significant role in supporting the government of President Bashar al-Assad against various rebel and extremist groups. Ezzedine’s remarks suggest that Hezbollah views its military presence in both Lebanon and Syria as part of a broader regional struggle against what it perceives as imperialist and Zionist agendas.
Hezbollah’s Weapons as a National Trust
In a particularly striking part of his statement, Ezzedine described Hezbollah’s weapons as a “trust” held not only by the group’s leadership but by the majority of the Lebanese people. This framing underscores the deep support that Hezbollah enjoys among significant segments of Lebanon’s population, particularly within the Shiite community, which views the group as a bulwark against external threats and a symbol of resistance against Israel.
“The weapons of the resistance are not merely in the hands of Hezbollah’s leadership,” Ezzedine said. “They are a trust in the hands of the Lebanese people, who stand united in their determination to protect their nation’s unity and sovereignty.”
This assertion reflects Hezbollah’s narrative that its military capabilities are not solely for the benefit of one sect or faction but are a national asset that safeguards Lebanon as a whole. The lawmaker’s rhetoric also serves to counter accusations that Hezbollah operates as a state within a state, emphasizing instead that its actions are rooted in a broader commitment to Lebanon’s survival and independence.
Regional Context: Israel and the Expansionist Narrative
Ezzedine’s remarks must be understood within the broader context of Lebanon’s fraught relationship with Israel. The two countries have a long history of conflict, including Israel’s invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982, as well as the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, which ended in a stalemate but caused significant destruction in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s emergence as a resistance movement was largely driven by these conflicts, particularly the 1982 invasion, which saw Israeli forces occupy southern Lebanon until their withdrawal in 2000.
The lawmaker’s reference to the “Zionist regime’s expansionist agenda” taps into a narrative that resonates strongly with Hezbollah’s base and other anti-Israel factions in the region. This narrative portrays Israel as a state intent on expanding its influence and territory at the expense of its neighbors, a claim that has been a cornerstone of Hezbollah’s ideology since its founding. Ezzedine’s statement suggests that any move to disarm Hezbollah would weaken Lebanon’s ability to resist potential Israeli aggression, leaving the country vulnerable to occupation or destabilization.
The ongoing tensions along the Lebanon-Israel border further contextualize Ezzedine’s remarks. In recent years, skirmishes and exchanges of fire have periodically erupted, often triggered by disputes over maritime boundaries, natural gas exploration, or alleged violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli aircraft. Hezbollah has consistently positioned itself as the primary defender of Lebanon’s southern frontier, arguing that its military presence deters Israel from launching a full-scale invasion.
Domestic and International Reactions
Ezzedine’s defense of Hezbollah’s weapons is likely to provoke varied responses within Lebanon and beyond. Domestically, opinions on Hezbollah’s role are deeply divided. Supporters, particularly within the Shiite community and allied Christian and Druze factions, view the group as a legitimate resistance movement and a necessary counterweight to external threats. Critics, including many Sunni and Christian factions, argue that Hezbollah’s military dominance undermines Lebanon’s sovereignty and fuels sectarian tensions.
Internationally, Hezbollah’s status as a designated terrorist organization in countries such as the United States, Canada, and several European nations complicates the debate. These countries have consistently called for Hezbollah’s disarmament and imposed sanctions on the group, accusing it of destabilizing the region through its military activities and alleged involvement in global terrorist networks. In contrast, nations like Iran and Syria, which provide Hezbollah with financial and military support, view the group as a legitimate resistance movement and a key ally in the so-called “Axis of Resistance” against Israel and Western influence.
Ezzedine’s remarks are also likely to resonate in the context of ongoing international efforts to address Lebanon’s political and economic crises. The country has been grappling with a severe financial collapse since 2019, compounded by political paralysis and the devastating 2020 Beirut port explosion. Some international donors and institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, have tied financial assistance to reforms, including measures to strengthen state institutions and reduce the influence of non-state actors like Hezbollah. Ezzedine’s statement can be seen as a direct rebuke to such pressures, asserting that Hezbollah’s role is non-negotiable.
The Broader Implications
The debate over Hezbollah’s weapons is not merely a domestic issue but one with significant regional and international implications. At its core, it reflects the broader struggle for power and influence in the Middle East, where competing visions of security, sovereignty, and resistance collide. For Hezbollah and its supporters, the group’s military capabilities are a cornerstone of Lebanon’s defense strategy, particularly in the face of perceived threats from Israel and its allies. For critics, Hezbollah’s arsenal represents a challenge to the Lebanese state’s authority and a source of regional instability.
Ezzedine’s remarks also highlight the challenges of achieving national unity in a country as diverse and divided as Lebanon. The question of Hezbollah’s role touches on fundamental issues of identity, governance, and foreign policy, making it a lightning rod for both domestic and international debates. Any attempt to address the issue of disarmament would require delicate negotiations and a broader consensus among Lebanon’s fractious political factions, a prospect that seems remote given the current polarization.
Moreover, the lawmaker’s reference to Syria underscores the interconnected nature of conflicts in the region. Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian civil war has been a point of contention, with critics accusing the group of overextending its resources and dragging Lebanon into a regional quagmire. Supporters, however, argue that Hezbollah’s intervention was necessary to prevent the spread of extremist groups into Lebanon and to counter Israel’s influence in the region.
Looking Ahead
As Lebanon continues to navigate its myriad challenges, the question of Hezbollah’s weapons is likely to remain a central issue. Ezzedine’s statement reflects the deep conviction among Hezbollah’s leadership and supporters that their military capabilities are non-negotiable, a stance that is unlikely to change in the absence of significant shifts in the regional security landscape.
For now, Hezbollah remains a dominant force in Lebanon, wielding significant influence in both the political and military spheres. Its ability to maintain popular support, particularly among marginalized communities, ensures that calls for disarmament will face strong resistance. At the same time, the group’s critics are unlikely to relent in their efforts to curb its influence, setting the stage for continued tensions.
In conclusion, Hassan Ezzedine’s defense of Hezbollah’s weapons underscores the complex interplay of security, sovereignty, and geopolitics in Lebanon and the broader Middle East. By framing disarmament as a threat to Lebanon’s survival and a boon to Israel’s alleged expansionist ambitions, Ezzedine has reaffirmed Hezbollah’s commitment to its role as a resistance movement. Whether this stance will lead to greater stability or further conflict remains an open question, one that will continue to shape Lebanon’s future in the years to come.