Lebanese Justice Minister Adel Nassar said Hezbollah's weapons do not stop Israeli attacks but instead provide a pretext for a full-scale war [1].

This statement marks a significant critique of the group's military strategy from within the Lebanese government. By challenging the utility of Hezbollah's arsenal, Nassar suggests that the presence of these weapons undermines national security rather than protecting it.

Nassar said to Al Jazeera Arabic that the current military posture of the group serves as a justification for Israel to expand its conflict [1]. He said that the arsenal does not act as an effective deterrent against foreign aggression. Instead, the weapons create a vulnerability that the opposing side can exploit to justify broader military operations [1].

Addressing the role of the group within the country, Nassar said Hezbollah weakens the state. He said that the period of resistance ended in 2000 [2], and that the restriction of weapons will be implemented. This assertion links the current instability of the state to the continued existence of an independent armed wing outside of official government control [2].

Regarding the possibility of diplomatic resolutions, Nassar has previously addressed the nature of engagement with the opposing side. He said that negotiating with Israel does not mean submitting to its conditions [3]. This suggests a preference for diplomatic channels that do not rely on the current military status quo.

Nassar's comments highlight a growing tension between the Lebanese state's legal authority and the military autonomy of Hezbollah. The Justice Minister's focus on the year 2000 [2] as the end of the resistance era serves as a legal and political argument for the disarmament of non-state actors to strengthen central governance.

Hezbollah weakens the state

The Justice Minister's comments signal a push for the centralization of military power in Lebanon. By framing Hezbollah's weapons as a strategic liability rather than a deterrent, Nassar is aligning the legal apparatus of the state with the argument that disarmament is a prerequisite for national stability and the prevention of full-scale war.