Why International Law Says Hezbollah’s Weapons Are Still Legal
By Mohamad Hammoud
Lebanon – Despite Beirut bowing to US pressure, the Geneva Conventions uphold the right to resist “Israel’s” occupation—just as history has proven.
The Right to Resist Occupation
When a foreign army seizes your land and strips away your dignity, one right burns hotter than all others: the right to fight back. This right transcends politics. It survives compromised governments, foreign dictates, and labels like “terrorist” or “illegal”. History is full of moments when liberation movements defied not only the occupier but also their own rulers, acting under the occupier’s shadow.
The Lebanese government’s recent decision—made under foreign pressure—to disarm Hezbollah is the latest example. It presents a chilling paradox: a foreign army entrenches itself on your soil, your homes are raided, your land confiscated and your sons imprisoned. Yet, the government that claims to represent you, whose strings are pulled from distant capitals, declares that defending yourself is a crime. Weapons aimed at the occupier are now “illegal”. This is not justice; it is the grotesque theater of occupation, where a compromised authority criminalizes the struggle for freedom.
This troubling pattern has repeated itself numerous times throughout history. As Nazi tanks rolled across Europe, the Vichy regime in France, cloaked in tattered legitimacy, branded the Maquis resistance fighters as outlaws and terrorists. But time vindicated the Maquis, recognizing their fight as the pure expression of a nation’s will to survive.
Similarly, colonial administrations and their local collaborators condemned liberation movements like the Viet Minh in Vietnam and the FLN in Algeria as terrorists. Yet international law and the tide of history ultimately recognized their cause as just—the undeniable right to self-determination against alien rule.
Even more recently, Nelson Mandela spent decades imprisoned on Robben Island, labeled a terrorist by the Apartheid regime and governments that supported it. His organization, the African National Congress, was outlawed. His crime was simple: demanding his people’s fundamental right to live freely in their own land. Today, Mandela stands as a global symbol of righteous resistance.
The pattern is clear: when governments hollowed out by foreign pressure outlaw resistance, they do not erase the right—they expose their own illegitimacy. International law recognizes this truth.
The Geneva Conventions and the Inviolable Right to Resist
International Humanitarian Law [IHL] protects the rights of people in occupied territories. The Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 47, states that occupied populations cannot be stripped of their rights “by any agreement” between the occupier and local authorities. No collaborationist government can legally outlaw resistance.
Additional Protocol I, Article 1(4) recognizes armed struggles against “colonial domination, alien occupation, and racist regimes” as legitimate international conflicts—not criminal insurgencies. The United Nations General Assembly reinforced this in Resolution 3314 [1974], affirming the right of peoples under foreign domination to resist “by all available means, including armed struggle.”
Moreover, the Geneva Conventions draw a bright line: the right to resist foreign occupation is inviolable. Governments acting under the influence of an occupier lose the moral authority to define what is “legal.” From the Maquis in France to Mandela in South Africa, history vindicates resistance movements, even when condemned by their own governments.
Hezbollah’s Role and Legal Standing
Born in response to “Israel’s” 1982 invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon, Hezbollah emerged as the only defender of a population abandoned by the Lebanese Armed Forces. The conflict between Hezbollah and “Israel” is widely recognized by international observers as an international armed conflict, subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
Beyond this, Article 9 of the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility allows for recognition of armed groups that act in place of absent state authorities—precisely Hezbollah’s role in southern Lebanon under occupation.
Constitutional Protections: The Taif Agreement
Lebanese law reinforces this legitimacy. The Taif Agreement—incorporated into the constitution—calls for “all necessary measures to liberate all Lebanese lands from the Israeli occupation.” For decades, this clause has been interpreted as legitimizing armed resistance until all occupied territory is freed.
Changing that interpretation requires a constitutional amendment under Article 79, which demands a two-thirds quorum and two-thirds majority in Parliament. No such process has occurred. Therefore, the government’s unilateral decision to disarm Hezbollah stands in direct violation of Lebanon’s constitutional order.
Law, History and Moral Authority
The question is not whether Beirut’s decision pleases Washington or satisfies international donors. The question is whether any government, acting under foreign pressure while parts of its land remain under occupation, has the authority to outlaw the defense of its own soil. International law answers no.
From the battlefields of occupied France to the prisons of Apartheid South Africa, the arc of history bends toward vindicating those who resist occupation. Beirut’s proclamation against Hezbollah’s arsenal—issued while “Israel” continues to occupy Lebanese territory and threaten further incursions—cannot erase rights guaranteed under the Geneva Conventions.
The flame of resistance, once lit by occupation, does not go out because a government says so—especially when that government speaks with a foreign accent.
