Resistance and Sovereignty: Hezbollah’s Defiant Stand Amid Israeli Occupation

Hezbollah refuses disarmament amid Israeli occupation; resistance framed as defense and dignity, while diplomacy struggles to reshape Lebanon’s fractured future.

In the shadow of a tenuous ceasefire, Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm underscores the enduring complexities of Lebanese sovereignty, Israeli security concerns, and the broader regional power struggle. On Sunday, during a speech commemorating Ashoura—a deeply symbolic Shiite event rooted in themes of sacrifice and resistance—Hezbollah’s deputy leader Naim Kassem reaffirmed the militant group’s position: disarmament is non-negotiable until Israel fully withdraws from southern Lebanon and ceases its near-daily aerial assaults.

The recent war, which concluded with a US-brokered ceasefire in November, left deep scars. Israeli strikes dismantled key components of Hezbollah’s leadership structure and arsenal, including the killing of longtime Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah. However, the ceasefire has not translated into peace. Israel retains control over five strategic border points and continues its military incursions, which have killed over 250 people since November, on top of more than 4,000 wartime casualties.

Kassem’s message was unequivocal. Hezbollah views its arsenal not merely as a means of confrontation, but as a guarantor of Lebanon’s territorial integrity and civilian protection. “How can we confront Israel when it attacks us if we didn’t have them?” he asked rhetorically. For Hezbollah and its supporters, resistance is not only political but existential, particularly in the face of ongoing Israeli aggression.

The timing of Kassem’s address is significant. Thousands had gathered in Beirut’s southern suburbs for Ashoura, a commemoration of the 7th-century Battle of Karbala where Imam Hussein stood against a corrupt regime. In this historical lens, Hezbollah casts its modern struggle as a continuation of that resistance against oppression and domination. Ashoura becomes more than a religious ritual; it is a political rallying cry.

International pressure, however, is mounting. The upcoming visit by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack signals renewed efforts to negotiate Hezbollah’s disarmament and facilitate Israel’s withdrawal. Barrack’s comments on X reflect a vision for a unified Lebanese state free from sectarian fragmentation and militia politics: “One country, one people, one army.” Yet such a vision, however idealistic, collides with on-the-ground realities. Hezbollah remains one of Lebanon’s most powerful political and military actors, commanding significant grassroots support.

Meanwhile, violence continues. Hours after Kassem’s speech, Israel launched fresh airstrikes across southern and eastern Lebanon, targeting areas like Baalbek and Apple Province. The Israeli military claimed to have struck “several Hezbollah military sites,” asserting that these actions are defensive, aimed at preventing Hezbollah’s resurgence.

This cycle of aggression and retaliation entrenches both sides. For Israel, Hezbollah remains an Iranian-backed existential threat on its northern frontier. For Hezbollah, Israel’s continued presence and strikes validate its resistance narrative and justify the retention of its weapons.

The current standoff is emblematic of a broader regional impasse where military solutions have failed to produce lasting peace. Disarmament cannot be imposed without addressing the root causes of insecurity and occupation. The call for a Lebanese national army monopoly on force is understandable—but in a country historically fractured by sectarian divisions and foreign interventions, such a transformation requires more than rhetoric.

As Lebanon stands at a political and diplomatic crossroads, the choices made in the coming weeks—by Hezbollah, Israel, and international mediators—will shape not only the fate of southern Lebanon but the viability of peace in the region.