By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem stated that the group will not disarm, arguing that calls for disarmament serve only Israel. The U.S. is reportedly pressuring Lebanon to formally commit to disarming Hezbollah before talks can resume regarding a halt to Israeli military operations, which are ongoing despite a ceasefire agreement. Qassem accused the U.S. of demanding the removal of Hezbollah’s missiles and drones, insisting that Israel must cease its strikes and withdraw from occupied positions before discussing the group’s weapons. A Lebanese cabinet meeting is scheduled to discuss extending state sovereignty and ceasefire arrangements, potentially including proposals from the U.S. envoy regarding Hezbollah’s disarmament.
Read the original article here
Hezbollah rejects calls to disarm, says demands serve Israel – well, this isn’t exactly a shocker, is it? It’s like saying water is wet. Of course, a group dedicated to armed resistance and, let’s be frank, conflict, is going to reject the idea of laying down their arms. The whole point, from their perspective, is to maintain a state of readiness and to be capable of inflicting damage, primarily against Israel. So, any demand for disarmament is inherently going to be seen as benefiting their long-time adversary. It’s a pretty straightforward equation, and from a purely tactical viewpoint, it makes perfect sense for them to resist such calls.
Hezbollah’s stance, naturally, is that these demands are just a way for Israel to gain an advantage. The logic is fairly clear: if Hezbollah disarms, they lose their ability to project power, to engage in any form of resistance, and to potentially deter Israeli actions. From their viewpoint, this would leave them vulnerable. So, it’s no surprise that they perceive such calls as a strategic move by Israel, aimed at weakening them and ensuring their own security. This perspective is further strengthened by historical context and geopolitical dynamics of the region.
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is relevant here, and it specifically calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, which definitely includes Hezbollah. The fact that this resolution has been in place and largely unenforced highlights the complexity of the situation. It’s a good reminder that even international bodies can struggle to get their will implemented.
The whole issue revolves around the fundamental goals of each side. Israel wants security, and Hezbollah wants to maintain its ability to resist what it sees as Israeli occupation or aggression. The chasm in these goals makes a peaceful resolution incredibly difficult. Disarming would clearly serve Israel’s interests by reducing the threat on its borders. From Hezbollah’s point of view, doing so would be a form of surrender, giving up their leverage and potentially their raison d’être.
It’s worth reflecting on what happens when conflicts are resolved. Typically, the winning side dictates the terms. The demands for disarmament are basically an extension of that idea. The outcome of a war can mean that the victor gets to decide the future. That’s a fundamental aspect of conflict resolution and one that Hezbollah undoubtedly understands. The concept of surrender also plays a huge part in any outcome of war.
There’s a stark comparison to be made, as an example, in the Irish gaining independence. It only became a reality once the Irish themselves disarmed certain radical inner circles. It’s a key example of how a change in approach can be necessary to achieve a long-term goal. Similarly, the Maoists in Nepal and the Colombian terrorists also had to negotiate their position.
The whole conversation is difficult, made even more difficult by the fact that the parties involved are often not only at odds with each other but also have widely different views on the value of human life.
Finally, from a pure game-theory perspective, any group engaging in armed conflict will want to maintain its capabilities as long as its goals have not been achieved. Hezbollah’s rejection of disarmament demands is, in that sense, entirely predictable. It’s a reflection of a persistent struggle for influence and survival in a region defined by complex and often conflicting interests. The reality is that the path to a resolution is long and tortuous, and disarmament will only happen once a viable end-state for all sides is considered acceptable.