Hezbollah’s rhetoric has shifted from defending its own choices to systematically assigning blame—casting the state as the perpetual aggressor and positioning itself as a neutral arbiter.

The party increasingly takes to political and media platforms, accusing Lebanese authorities of incompetence and collusion. It cites commitments from President Joseph Aoun's 2025 inaugural "Oath Speech" and subsequent ministerial statements—promising the release of prisoners from Israeli jails, the repatriation of occupied territories, a halt to Israeli aggression, and accelerated reconstruction efforts. According to the party, the state’s failures represent a broader inability to fulfill national responsibilities.

However, their rhetoric deliberately ignores reality: the Lebanese state is not an independent actor. It operates according to a clear, publicly announced roadmap to achieve these goals, beginning with the centralization of weapons under state authority. The party also overlooks that international supporters of Lebanon have explicitly conditioned financial aid, reconstruction, and economic recovery on the legalization of arms and the consolidation of military and security decisions under state control. Without these conditions in place, the discussion remains largely theoretical.

Nevertheless, to avoid descending into an exchange of accusations, one could accept that the Lebanese state is failing, has not fulfilled its promises, and needs increased political accountability. But if this standard is applied, it must be applied evenly to Hezbollah as well.

Has Hezbollah not drawn Lebanon into major military confrontations under slogans like “destroy Israel” and “throw it into the sea,” without achieving any major objectives?

Were thousands of young people not sent to the battlefield in the name of liberating Jerusalem, while the city itself remained unaffected?

Were tens of thousands of Lebanese not uprooted from their villages and towns in the name of expelling Israel from Galilee, while this promise remained unfulfilled?

Did the party not promise to "Build and Protect" in every contested parliamentary elections over the past decade, while vast areas continued to suffer destruction, displacement, and economic collapse?

The answer is yes. These facts cannot be overlooked when discussing responsibilities.

Without a doubt, the Lebanese state deserves criticism for failing to meet its commitments to its people—its inability to rise above structural weaknesses and external limits on sovereignty. Yet this reality is directly tied to Hezbollah’s arsenal, which is wielded domestically to intimidate and pressure whenever the state or its monopoly on decision-making is challenged.

The comparison is unavoidable: if a weak state is held accountable for promises it cannot not fulfill, how should one judge an organized force with weapons and influence which makes grand promises, only to leave behind wars, displacement, human losses, and mounting crises? The failure here is not just in unachieved objectives but also in the enormous costs incurred in their name. 

Accountability cannot be selective. Any serious discussion about Lebanon’s future must start with a simple truth: one cannot hold others accountable without first holding oneself accountable, nor can a state be built while ignoring one’s own shortcomings under the guise of criticizing others.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.