Kenneth Glad
The dispute has become a test of power inside a fragile state. At its center is a question many civilians cannot avoid: Who gets to decide when a country is at war?
In an interview with Norwegian public broadcaster NRK, senior Hezbollah politician Hussein Hajj Hassan defended the movement’s decision to fire rockets at Israel after October 7.
Hassan, who has represented Hezbollah in Lebanon’s parliament for 30 years, rejected the idea that Hamas alone triggered the wider conflict.
“The reality is not that Hamas attacked Israel. The reality is that Israel occupied all of Palestine,” he said.
A state with two powers
The exchange highlighted Lebanon’s unresolved sovereignty crisis. Hezbollah is not only a political party, writes the Council on Foreign Relation, with seats in parliament. It also maintains its own military wing, built over decades with support from Iran and developed outside the command structure of the Lebanese state.
The group emerged, according to Britannica, during Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon in the 1980s and gradually evolved into one of the most heavily armed non-state organizations in the Middle East. Today, it operates its own military infrastructure, including fighters, missiles, drones and intelligence capabilities, while also participating in Lebanon’s political system.
Many analysts regard Hezbollah’s military strength as exceeding that of the Lebanese armed forces in several areas, particularly in terms of missile arsenals and combat experience. Critics argue that this creates a parallel power structure that allows the movement to make decisions on war and peace without government authorization.
That reality remains deeply controversial inside Lebanon. Opponents say only the state should possess weapons and determine foreign and military policy, while Hezbollah and its supporters argue that the group remains necessary because Lebanon’s army lacks the resources to deter Israel.
Asked why Hezbollah could act without state approval, Hassan said opinion in Lebanon is divided and maintained that many Lebanese continue to support armed resistance against Israel.
Weapons remain the core issue
Lebanon’s government has called for Hezbollah to give up its arsenal, but the group refuses, arguing that the state is not strong enough to defend the country on its own. Hassan told NRK that the Lebanese army lacks the aircraft, missiles and heavy weapons needed to confront Israel.
“They have no planes. They have no missiles. What should I do? Let my people and my country remain defenseless? No,” he said.
For Hezbollah, that argument is central to keeping its weapons. For its opponents, it is precisely the problem: A political movement is making military decisions outside full state control.
His answer points to the core deadlock. The government wants one chain of command and one national army, while Hezbollah says disarming would leave Lebanon exposed to a stronger neighbor.
Ceasefire blame is disputed
Although a ceasefire is formally in place, violence has continued. Hassan placed responsibility on Israel, accusing it of occupying Lebanese land and forcing people from their homes.
“Israel has no right to accuse us. Israel broke the ceasefire,” he said.
NRK also noted that Hezbollah attacks have affected civilian communities in northern Israel, where many residents have fled during the fighting.
When pressed about attacks on civilian areas, Hassan denied that civilians are Hezbollah’s target.
“In principle, Hezbollah does not attack civilians. But when Israel bombs civilians violently here, we must respond,” he said.
He then defended a harder position on Israel’s presence, saying Israelis “should return to where they came from.”
Sources: NRK, Council on Foreign Relations, Britannica
