Public skepticism is growing in Lebanon over whether the army is fully enforcing the ceasefire agreement that required Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani River and surrender heavy weapons, as the group has demonstrated renewed military capabilities in recent weeks. Social media discussions among Lebanese citizens have questioned how Hezbollah sustained weeks of frontline combat operations and launched persistent rocket and drone attacks following January weapons seizures the army announced publicly. The disparity between official statements about disarmament and observable military activity has fueled controversy about the Lebanese Armed Forces' neutrality. The Lebanese military announced weapons confiscations from Hezbollah positions in January as part of implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between the group and Israel. Yet by February and March, Hezbollah was conducting sustained combat operations in southern border villages, suggesting either incomplete weapons collection or continued resupply. This discrepancy touches on the most sensitive fault line in Lebanon's military: sectarian divisions within officer ranks. The Lebanese Armed Forces draw personnel from all of the country's religious communities, including Shia Muslims who constitute a significant portion of the rank-and-file and some senior positions. Questions about whether Shia officers might prioritize sectarian loyalty over institutional duty reflect broader anxieties about whether Lebanon's state institutions can function independently of militia influence. The controversy also reveals the structural impossibility of the Lebanese Army's mandate. The force is tasked with disarming an organization that maintains military capabilities exceeding its own, enjoys backing from Iran, and wields decisive political power within the Lebanese system. Previous attempts by the army to confront Hezbollah militarily—most notably in 2008—resulted in swift defeat and the reassertion of Hezbollah's de facto veto over state security decisions. United Nations peacekeepers operating in southern Lebanon under UNIFIL have documented limitations in their ability to monitor compliance with the ceasefire terms, frequently denied access to areas where Hezbollah maintains presence. The Lebanese Army's cooperation—or lack thereof—with these monitoring efforts has been a source of friction with international forces. The questions circulating on social media, while based on observations rather than official investigations, reflect genuine public concern about whether Lebanon's military institutions can serve as neutral arbiters in a country where armed non-state actors shape political outcomes. In this region, today's headline is yesterday's history repeating—the same questions about army loyalty and militia disarmament that defined Lebanon's civil war era continue to haunt its fragile postwar settlement. Neither the Lebanese Armed Forces nor Hezbollah have issued statements addressing the public skepticism. The silence itself is telling in a political environment where both institutions typically respond swiftly to challenges to their credibility.

Questions Mount Over Lebanese Army's Role in Hezbollah Rearmament