The ministerial statement will be debated in parliament on 25 and 26 February, during which Salam’s cabinet will need to obtain parliament’s vote of confidence to begin its work [Getty]
For the first time in over two decades, the Lebanese government has omitted the term “armed resistance” from its ministerial statement, marking a significant shift in rhetoric amid deep divisions over Hezbollah’s role in the country.
The statement, approved by the Council of Ministers headed by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Monday, lays out the government’s priorities, focusing on national sovereignty, disarmament, and adherence to UN Resolution 1701.
However, it makes no mention of the “armed resistance”, a term long associated with Hezbollah and the group’s justification for maintaining an armed presence outside state control, arguing this is necessary to defend Lebanon from Israeli aggression.
The move comes after Hezbollah suffered a series of military and political setbacks, including the assassination of most of its senior leaders by Israel – among them its chief, Hassan Nasrallah – along with devastating strikes targeting its infrastructure in Lebanon and Syria.
Since the Taif Agreement in 1989, successive Lebanese governments have included some reference to armed resistance in their ministerial statements, which was historically used as a broad reference to Beirut’s right to resist Israeli occupation.
Prime Minister Salim Hoss – who served several terms from 1976-1980, 1987-1990, and 1998-2000 – had consistently emphasised the need to liberate south Lebanon from the Israeli occupation and had supported a “valiant resistance”.
Similar references appeared in the ministerial statements of Prime Minister Omar Karami in 1991, who affirmed the Lebanese people’s right to legitimate resistance under the UN Charter, and Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 1995, who had declared resisting occupation a “national and political duty” and affirmed that confronting occupation through all available means was both a right and a duty.
Even after Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon in 2000, the term remained in use, despite mounting political divisions over Hezbollah’s armed wing. While the language became more vague in recent years, the reference to resistance was consistently included – until now.
Reactions from Lebanon
Hezbollah’s loyalists and allies denounced the move as a “dangerous” departure from Lebanon’s historical stance on armed resistance against Israel.
Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah criticised the government for what he called an attempt to “appease Western powers”, warning that Lebanon could not abandon its right to defend itself.
Meanwhile, members of the anti-Hezbollah opposition welcomed the change as “long overdue”. MP Ashraf Rifi, a longtime critic of Hezbollah, called the omission a step toward reasserting state sovereignty, arguing that Lebanon must separate itself from the group’s regional conflicts and align with Arab and international partners.
Former MP Mustafa Allouch echoed this sentiment, stating that Hezbollah’s monopoly on resistance rhetoric has only served to entrench its influence and sideline the Lebanese state.
He added that true sovereignty comes through strengthening the Lebanese army, not through the presence of an armed faction operating outside state control.
The ministerial statement will be debated in parliament on 25 and 26 February, during which Salam’s cabinet will need to obtain parliament’s vote of confidence to begin its work.
The statement also addressed commitment to national sovereignty, emphasising the state’s exclusive right to bear arms and its duty to extend full authority over all Lebanese territories.
It reaffirmed Lebanon’s adherence to UN Resolution 1701, which calls for the disarmament of all non-state actors and commits to avoiding regional conflicts and maintaining neutrality.
It also stressed the need to engage in dialogue with Syria, strengthen border security, and facilitate the return of Syrian refugees. It further pledges that Lebanon will not be used as a platform to attack allied and friendly nations.
Beyond security and foreign policy, the statement highlighted the government’s intention to establish a reconstruction fund to ensure transparency in rebuilding efforts following the devastation from Israel’s military assaults, which had left widespread destruction in infrastructure, displaced thousands, and deepened the country’s economic crisis.
It also stressed commitment to judicial independence and supported the resumption of investigations into the Beirut port blast –Â a demand long pushed by families of the victims.
How much value does the ministerial statement hold?
Despite the political significance of the changes, constitutional law expert Wissam Lahham emphasised that the ministerial statement holds no legal weight and was not binding on state institutions or courts.
“The ministerial statement is a political document, not a legal one. It is important because it forms the basis for the vote of confidence in parliament, but it does not impose legal obligations on the government,” Lahham told The New Arab.
Lahham said that the Lebanese parliament does not have the authority to amend the statement and can only approve or reject the government as a whole.
“MPs do not vote on each clause; they vote on whether to grant confidence to the government,” he said.
Lahham also pointed to the notable political shift in the latest statement – the removal of the word ‘resistance’ – but noted that its previous inclusion had always been deliberately ambiguous.
“The term ‘resistance’ was a broad term, not a specific designation, and was historically used in a broad sense, referring to the Lebanese people rather than Hezbollah specifically. This ambiguity allowed Hezbollah to justify its armed presence within the framework of state legitimacy,” he said.
He also highlighted that UN Resolution 1701 explicitly prohibits non-state weapons, meaning Hezbollah had relied on the “resistance” terminology to justify its armed presence.
However, he added that even if Hezbollah was explicitly named in the statement, it would have carried no legal weight.
Lahham described the statement as “vague and non-revolutionary”, noting that many Lebanese were hopeful for bigger changes with the lack of clarity on banking reforms was “concerning”.
