disarming

PM’s office says the weapons transfer to the Lebanese army marks the start of a wider disarmament campaign.

Lebanon has launched a plan to disarm Palestinian groups in its refugee camps, beginning with the handover of weapons from Burj al-Barajneh camp in Beirut.

The prime minister’s office announced on Thursday that the weapons transfer to the Lebanese army marks the start of a wider disarmament campaign. More handovers are expected in the coming weeks across Burj al-Barajneh and other camps nationwide.

A Fatah official told the Reuters news agency the arms handed over so far were only illegal weapons that had entered the camp within the previous day. Television footage showed military vehicles inside the camp, though Reuters could not verify what type of weapons were being surrendered.

The initiative follows Lebanon’s commitment under a US-backed truce between Israel and Hezbollah in November, which restricted weapons to six state security forces. Since the November 27, 2024, ceasefire agreement, Israel has continued attacking Lebanon, often on a weekly basis.

The government has tasked the army with producing a strategy by the end of the year to consolidate all arms under state authority.

According to the prime minister’s office, the decision to disarm Palestinian factions was reached in a May meeting between Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Both leaders affirmed Lebanon’s sovereignty and insisted that only the state should hold arms. Lebanese and Palestinian officials later agreed on a timeline and mechanism for the handovers.

For decades, Palestinian groups have maintained control inside Lebanon’s 12 refugee camps, which largely operate outside state jurisdiction. The latest initiative is seen as the most serious effort in years to curb the presence of weapons inside the camps.

Palestinian resistance movements grew out of displacement and political exclusion after the creation of Israel in 1948, when some 750,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes.

Over the years, groups including Fatah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) established a presence in Lebanon’s camps to continue armed struggle against Israel.

Palestinian refugees in Lebanon remain without key civil rights, such as access to certain jobs and property ownership. With limited opportunities, many have turned to armed factions for protection or representation.

The disarmament push also comes as Hezbollah faces what analysts describe as its greatest military challenge in decades, following Israeli strikes in 2024 that decimated much of its leadership.

BEIRUT, Lebanon, Aug. 15 (UPI) — Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem issued a strong warning to the Lebanese government against moving forward with its plan to disarm the Iran-backed militant group, accusing it of acting on orders from the United States and Israel, and threatening that such a move could spark a civil war.

Qassem said his group will not “surrender its weapons” while Israel, which significantly weakened Hezbollah during a 14-month war last year, remains a threat and continues to strike Lebanon, occupy parts of its territories and hold Lebanese prisoners.

“We will fight this as a Karbala-style battle if necessary, confronting this Israeli-American scheme no matter the cost, confident that we will emerge victorious,” he said in a televised speech released Friday.

To Muslim Shiites, Karbala means standing against tyranny, sacrifice and steadfastness in the face of overwhelming odds.

Qassem’s strong warning came after he met with Iran Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani, who visited Beirut on Wednesday, where he heard firm statements from President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam rejecting any interference in their country’s internal affairs.

Larijani tried to play down recent comments by Iranian political and military officials who criticized the Lebanese government for endorsing the objectives of a U.S.-proposed plan to disarm Hezbollah and for tasking the Lebanese Army with developing a strategy to enforce a state monopoly on weapons by the end of the year.

The Iranian officials also maintained that Hezbollah, which has been funded and armed by Iran since its formation in the early 1980s, would never be disarmed.

Qassem said the government took “a very dangerous decision” last week, exposing the country to “a major crisis” and stripping it of “defensive weapons during times of aggression.”

He also accused it of “serving the Israeli agenda” and carrying out “an order” from the U.S. and Israel “to end the resistance, even if that leads to a civil war and internal strife.”

He held the government fully responsible for any sectarian strife, internal explosion, or destruction of Lebanon and warned it against dragging the Army into such an internal conflict.

Qassem, said, however, there “is still an opportunity, room for dialogue and for making adjustments before reaching a confrontation that no one wants.”

He added that Hezbollah was ready for confrontation and that demonstrations will be held across Lebanon, including “heading to the U.S. Embassy,” located in Awkar, north of Beirut.

Hezbollah, which reportedly lost the bulk of its military capabilities in ongoing Israeli airstrikes targeting its positions in southern and eastern Lebanon, accepted the ceasefire accord to stop a war that killed or wounded more than 20,000 people and left border villages in southern Lebanon in ruins.

While it implicitly agreed to discuss its weapons as part of a national defense strategy, the group resisted government efforts to set a timetable for disarming — a key U.S. condition for unlocking much-needed international and Gulf Arab funding to support Lebanon’s reconstruction and economic recovery.

Lebanon’s decision to set a timeline for Hezbollah disarming was mainly motivated by the risk of another devastating war with Israel and of losing well-needed funds to rebuild its war-devastated regions.

“Let us work together to build the country, so that we may all win,” Qassem said. “There is no life for Lebanon if you choose to stand on the opposite side.”

Lebanon’s government has announced a timeline for Hezbollah’s disarmament, saying the military would set out a plan to bring all weapons under state authority before the end of 2025.

This comes after months of pressure from the United States after Israel’s war on Lebanon killed more than 4,000 people and culminated in a ceasefire in November. Israel has continuously violated the ceasefire and still occupies five points in Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s arms have long been a contentious issue in Lebanon, and attempts to interfere in Hezbollah’s infrastructure or military capabilities have led to internal conflict.

However, Hezbollah took heavy losses in Israeli attacks last year, which diminished its status as Lebanon’s political and military hegemon.

As the issue of disarming Hezbollah heats up, here’s what you need to know about the government’s announcement on Tuesday and the situation in Lebanon:

What did Hezbollah say?

It doesn’t like the disarmament plan.

In fact, Hezbollah said it would treat the decision as though it didn’t exist.

“The government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam committed a grave sin by taking a decision to strip Lebanon of its weapons to resist the Israeli enemy. … This decision fully serves Israel’s interest,” the group said in a statement.

Despite its flat-out rejection of the government’s decision, Hezbollah has yet to respond with force.

Under its late leader Hassan Nasrallah, the group threatened that any act taken against its arms could lead to civil war.

This time, Hezbollah has not taken military action, possibly a result of a change in its strategy or because of its weakened capacity after the war.

Rumours circulated during a cabinet session on Tuesday that Hezbollah supporters in black shirts were gathering along the highway in Khaldeh, just south of Beirut, but that turned out to be a restaurant celebrating reaching one million followers on Instagram.

Pro-Hezbollah protesters did briefly block the airport road in Beirut after the government’s decision, but little else has manifested despite heightened domestic concerns.

What about Iran, Hezbollah’s backer?

Iran voiced support for Hezbollah but said it has no role in shaping the group’s decisions or policy.

The comments came from Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said the efforts to disarm Hezbollah wouldn’t work.

‏“This is not the first time they’ve tried to strip Hezbollah of its weapons,” Araghchi said. “The reason is clear: The power of resistance has proven itself in the field.”

Iran played a formative role in founding Hezbollah in 1982 during the heat of the Lebanese Civil War and has been the group’s main benefactor ever since.

But since Israel’s war on Lebanon, Iran’s ability to support Hezbollah has taken a major hit. The Lebanese government has blocked flights from Tehran, and the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in neighbouring Syria has blocked the land route used to transport funding and weapons.

How did Lebanon respond?

Iran’s comments angered some Lebanese officials.

Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi said Araghchi’s statement is “firmly rejected and condemned”.

“Such statements undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty, unity and stability and constitute an unacceptable interference in its internal matters and sovereign decisions,” Raggi said.

Is disarmament going to happen?

This remains to be seen.

Salam said after a follow-up cabinet meeting on Thursday that his ministers approved the “objectives” of a US proposal for “ensuring that the possession of weapons is restricted solely to the state”.

“The government is now expected to formally commit to disarming Hezbollah, a decision that could … ignite a political crisis,” Al Jazeera’s Beirut correspondent Zeina Khodr said.

Hezbollah has yet to respond forcefully, and anti-Hezbollah politicians have used increasingly bold rhetoric.

“If there is a cost to be able to centralise the weapons with the … Lebanese armed forces, [it may be] better like that,” Elias Hankash, a Lebanese MP with the anti-Hezbollah Kataeb party, said.

President Joseph Aoun and Salam will have to navigate US pressure and domestic support for disarming Hezbollah with opposition from the group and its supporters, who are reeling from Israel’s war.

The World Bank has said Lebanon needs $11bn for reconstruction and recovery, the vast majority of which is needed in southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley and Beirut’s suburbs, where most of Hezbollah’s support is based.

Have any Hezbollah members expressed discontent with disarmament?

Plenty of discontent has been expressed.

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the idea, saying the group’s disarmament would make Lebanon vulnerable to attack and would serve only Israel.

Ali Mokdad, a Hezbollah MP, also dismissed the decision, calling it “ink on paper”. Another Hezbollah MP, Mohammad Raad, said the decision could never be implemented and compared Hezbollah giving up its weapons to “suicide”.

What are things like right now?

Tensions were heightened on Saturday when six Lebanese soldiers were killed while inspecting an alleged Hezbollah weapons site.

Hezbollah reportedly booby-trapped sites in southern Lebanon during the war in case invading Israeli soldiers came upon them.

Many from Lebanon’s south are antagonistic towards Beirut, feeling the government has not been able to defend the south, which continues to suffer from daily Israeli attacks. Residents also lament the lack of public statements about the deaths from those attacks.

BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 7 (UPI) — U.S. special envoy Thomas Barrack said Monday he was “unbelievably satisfied” with Lebanon’s response to Washington’s proposals to disarm Hezbollah, saying Israel seeks peace with its neighbor and Hezbollah needs to see that there is a path forward for them.

Barrack, however, warned that war-ravaged Lebanon risks being left behind if it fails to seize the current opportunities with the region changing at high speed.

The envoy, who was speaking after a meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun shortly after his arrival in Beirut, praised the Lebanese officials for presenting “a thoughtful and considered” seven-page response to his June 19 roadmap.

His initial proposals include a phased approach to disarm Hezbollah and other militant groups, the implementation of necessary reforms to unlock funds for reconstruction and help solve its acute financial crisis as well as the need to improve ties with neighboring Syria.

According to a statement released by the Presidential Palace, Barrack was handed over Lebanon’s reply with “ideas for a comprehensive solution.”

“We are creating a go-forward plan. To create that, we need dialogue. What the government gave us was something spectacular,” Barrack said. “We are both committed to get to the details and get a resolution. So, I am very, very hopeful.”

He said the mechanism set up to monitor the Nov. 27 cease-fire accord that ended 14 months of a devastating Israel-Hezbollah war “wasn’t sufficient” and “had no ability to correct a default,” referring to the mistrust between Israel and Hezbollah.

Israel has continued striking southern Lebanon and other areas of the country since the cease-fire accord, which was brokered by the United States and France, went into effect Feb. 18. It has also refused to fully withdraw and retained five strategic positions inside south Lebanon to force the full disarmament of Hezbollah.

More than 200 Lebanese civilians and Hezbollah field commanders were killed in the ongoing strikes, which Israel claims to target suspected Hezbollah positions and foil the group’s attempts to reorganize its ranks and rearm in violations of the cease-fire accord. Lebanon and Hezbollah on their part recorded more than 3,700 Israeli violations.

In line with the cease-fire agreement, the Lebanese Army has taken control of most of Hezbollah’s positions and military facilities, pushing the militant group away from the border with Israel and preventing it from having a military presence south of the Litani River. The Army could not complete its deployment because of Israel’s continued occupation of the five points inside south Lebanon.

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam explained after a meeting with the U.S. envoy that Barrack “wouldn’t have come with new ideas” if the mechanism to monitor the ceasefire succeeded in ending the ongoing hostilities.

“These are ideas for implementing the cessation of hostilities arrangements … based on the principle of parallel and reciprocal steps — not that Israel withdraws first and then we start talking about the issue of exclusive arms control, or that if there is no exclusivity of arms, Israel doesn’t withdraw,” Salam said.

“That’s not how this process works. There are interlinked steps that unfold over time.”

He said Lebanon’s demands include the necessity of a full Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory, a comprehensive and complete cessation of hostile activities, the immediate start of reconstruction efforts and the release of the remaining Lebanese prisoners held by Israel.

“The exclusivity of weapons must be in the hands of the Lebanese state, and it alone must reclaim the decision over war and peace,” Salam said. “This authority must lie solely with the Lebanese state, without any partnership with any other party.”

On Sunday, Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem said his group, which has repeatedly refused to lay down arms, was ready for both choices: peace and building Lebanon, but also for defending it and confronting Israel until it ends its air strikes and pulls out from south Lebanon.

The U.S. envoy said there is “an opportunity in the air,” calling on Lebanon not to miss it as the region is changing and “everything is moving at warp speed.”

Barrack said that he believes Israel wants peace, not war, with Lebanon while Hezbollah needs to see that “there is a future for them … that there is an intersection of peace and prosperity for them.”

“It has been a nightmare on both sides, for both countries and everybody is tired of it,” he said. “I think both countries are trying to give the same thing: the notion of a stand down agreement of the cessation of hostilities and a road to peace… but everybody will have to give up something.”

Barrack said while Syria “went from absolute chaos to hope of the world standing behind it” and started a dialogue with Israel, Lebanon “can’t be left behind.”

He warned Lebanon that the region “the region is moving at mach speed,” and will be “left behind sadly” if it refuses to change.

But if it does change, Barrack said Washington will support it, adding that U.S. President Donald Trump “for some reason, believes that Lebanon still is the key to the region and can be the Pearl of the Mediterranean.”

When Abdullah Ocalan said his Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, should lay down its arms and disband after more than four decades of conflict with the Turkish state and tens of thousands of deaths, there was an instant look across the border to Syria.

Syria’s northeast is largely controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-led military force Turkiye has repeatedly fought against over the past decade.

The SDF is led by the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which Turkiye views as a “terrorist” group and the Syrian branch of the PKK. The United States, however, has backed the YPG in Syria to fight against ISIL (ISIS).

Since the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December, the SDF has been negotiating with the new Turkish-allied government in Damascus over what its future role in a newly unified Syria and as a military force will be and what kind of governance will extend to the northeast of the country.

No laying down of arms

The removal of the PKK from the equation will likely facilitate the SDF’s integration with Damascus, analysts told Al Jazeera.

“For the SDF, it makes it much easier to talk with the government in Damascus and also to de-escalate their relations with Turkey,” said Wladimir van Wilgenburg, an analyst of Kurdish politics based in Erbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq.

While the SDF rejects Turkiye’s assertions that it is the Syrian arm of the PKK, analysts said the groups have strong links.

While the PKK’s announcement that it would heed Ocalan’s call and disarm was welcomed by SDF leader Mazloum Abdi, he said his group would not disarm and Ocalan’s decision did not extend to Syria.

But this could give the group further incentives to bring its fighting force and governing structure – called the Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria (AANES) – under the umbrella of the new government in Damascus.

When reached for comment on Monday, an AANES spokesperson told Al Jazeera: “The autonomous administration is not concerned with the internal affairs of other countries.”

The SDF has clashed with Turkish-backed Syrian factions, including in the immediate days after the fall of al-Assad’s regime, and sustained attacks from Turkiye’s air force.

In December, the US negotiated a ceasefire between the SDF and the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army, which has since been incorporated into Syria’s new armed forces.

Abdi has been in discussions with the new Syrian government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, over how best to integrate the SDF into the post-Baathist Party security forces and govern Syria’s northeast.

Increased pressure to negotiate

The SDF has engaged in the talks with the pressure of an impending US troop withdrawal from northeast Syria.

Without a US presence and support, the SDF has feared it might be vulnerable to attacks from Turkiye or Turkish-backed factions in Syria.

But should the PKK’s decision to disarm bring a feeling of security to Turkiye along its border with Syria, analysts said the relations between the SDF and Turkiye would also likely improve.

“We know that Turkey’s hardline stance towards the SDF was very much linked to concerns over the PKK and not so much about the SDF being Kurdish-dominated,” Thomas Pierret, a Syria specialist and senior researcher at the Institute of Research and Study on the Arab and Islamic Worlds, told Al Jazeera.

This is evident by Turkiye’s relations with Masoud Barzani and his Kurdish Democratic Party in northern Iraq’s Kurdish region, Pierret said.

Of course, this new reality “doesn’t mean it will be easy”, according to Pierret. Under the agreement between Turkiye and the PKK, some fighters could be relocated to third countries – essentially sent into exile. There’s also the possibility some fighters may decide to make their way to northeast Syria, in which case, Pierret said, Turkiye could see the SDF as a haven for PKK fighters.

So Turkiye will keep a close eye on the SDF in Syria and the SDF’s negotiations with Damascus.

In the past, the Turkish military has launched drones, fired artillery and carried out air strikes against Kurdish fighters, including the SDF.  And analysts said military options may still be on the table going forward.

“For now, they seem to be letting negotiations take their course,” Aron Lund, a fellow at Century International with a focus on Syria, told Al Jazeera. “And that’s probably related both to events in Syria but also to the PKK process.”

Beyond Syria

The PKK’s affiliates and allies are spread across regions of the Middle East where Kurds live.

Historically, the PKK has operated in Turkiye as well as northern Iraq. And their allies have operated in places where Kurds live in Syria and Iran. Their struggles have often opposed the national authorities in those places or sought self-determination or federalism.

One example is the Kurdistan Free Life Party, or PJAK, in Iran, which says its goal is to declare an autonomous Kurdish region in Iran.

“It’s unclear what will happen with the … PJAK because they also have a number of Iranian Kurdish fighters inside the PKK,” van Wildenburg said.

“It’s possible that they will continue as a political party and not as an armed group because they are already not doing much fighting against the Iranian state anyway.”

Analysts agree it is unclear whether the PKK’s allies will follow Ocalan’s lead and lay down their arms or, as is the case with the SDF in Syria, if they will view their own struggles as independent and make decisions on their own.