Raad Assails Government Over Weapon Exclusivity, Accuses State of Abandoning Resistance

Muhammad Raad, leader of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, has delivered a scathing critique of Lebanon's negotiating posture toward Israel, asserting that state authorities have essentially embraced Israeli positions while steering the country toward a "dangerous downward path."

At the center of his attack is the weapon exclusivity initiative, which Raad frames as a capitulation to Western and American pressure. He contends the Lebanese government is trading national sovereignty for international backing by pursuing the disarmament and dismantling of the resistance movement.

The political confrontation extends beyond ceasefire discussions or southern stability, Raad argues. He views current developments as an attempt to impose internal political restructuring designed to end armed resistance and strip it of its weaponry. The state, he suggests, has adopted this course believing it offers a path to national salvation, regardless of the cost to sovereignty and national pride.

Raad grounds his opposition in the resistance's foundational principles: absolute rejection of Israeli occupation on Lebanese soil and acknowledgment that Lebanon remains technically at war with Israel since the 1949 armistice agreement. Historical precedent, he maintains, demonstrates that resistance alone has achieved Israeli military withdrawal, while diplomatic channels and international mediation have repeatedly failed to recover Lebanese rights.

The politician warned that capitulating to Israeli demands would only invite further incursions and pressure. Israel, he contended, retreats only when confronted with sustained and determined resistance, while any sign of weakness or domestic compromise encourages deeper encroachment and the imposition of Israeli political and security demands.

Regarding the November 27, 2024 ceasefire accord, Raad stated that the resistance movement honored its commitments fully and transferred implementation responsibilities to the Lebanese state. These obligations include halting Israeli attacks, securing prisoner releases, facilitating the return of displaced populations, and initiating reconstruction efforts.

Yet Israel, he argued, exploited the government's adoption of weapon exclusivity to intensify its pressure campaign and expand its conditions. The situation has deteriorated since then, he said, culminating in direct negotiations he characterized as proceeding without proper constitutional or parliamentary authorization.

Raad identified the nation as standing at a critical juncture with potential for catastrophic consequences. He assigned responsibility to state authorities and warned that strengthening governmental power by disarming the resistance amounts to "a terrible crime against the nation and its citizens."

The resistance, Raad stressed, views itself as Lebanon's legitimate defender of sovereignty and national existence. He emphasized that the movement continues to bear casualties, injuries, and displacement in service of the country. He also clarified that external support for the resistance—whether from Iran, Arab states, or other sources—remains subordinate to Lebanese national interests and the welfare of its people.

Raad's statements arrive during an exceptionally tense political and security period marked by intensified internal debate over Hezbollah's arsenal, sustained international and regional pressure following the recent conflict, and ceasefire-related arrangements. The remarks coincide with mounting discussion among Lebanese political factions regarding the mechanics of indirect Israeli negotiations, American involvement in managing that process, and a fundamental divide between those prioritizing stability and preventing state collapse versus those viewing any concessions on weapons or sovereignty as fundamentally altering Lebanon's strategic position.

In recent months, sharp disagreements have surfaced among Lebanese political parties concerning weapon exclusivity, particularly following expanded southern front hostilities and persistent Israeli military operations despite ceasefire declarations. This tension reflects competing American and Western pressure to enhance Lebanese state security capacity in exchange for Hezbollah's commitment to the resistance framework, which the movement describes as essential to deterring Israeli aggression and preventing the imposition of Israeli conditions on Lebanon.