On September 5, 2025, a dramatic walkout unfolded in Beirut’s cabinet chambers, as ministers from Hezbollah and its ally Amal exited a government session in protest over a controversial Lebanese Army plan to disarm the powerful Shiite movement. The move, which made headlines across the region, underscored the deep divisions within Lebanon’s government and highlighted the ongoing tensions between Hezbollah, Israel, and international actors pressing for change.
The walkout wasn’t entirely unexpected. According to EFE, the five ministers representing the so-called “Shiite duo”—Hezbollah and Amal—left just as Army Chief Rodolphe Haykal arrived to present his plan before the Council of Ministers. Among those departing was Fadi Makki, the minister of Administrative Reforms, who not only confirmed his departure but also stated on X (formerly Twitter) that he would be willing to resign from the government entirely if it would “serve the national interest.”
Makki’s words were pointed: “I once again call upon my fellow ministers and political authorities to discuss the plan under the framework of the ministerial statement that we all agreed upon, with regard to confining weapons to the state and its institutions, with deliberation and care, and prioritizing the interest of the nation, the south, and civil peace above all other considerations.” His statement, as reported by EFE, echoed the sentiment among many Shiite ministers that the issue of disarmament should be approached with caution and consensus, rather than through abrupt or externally pressured measures.
The roots of Friday’s standoff stretch back to August, when Lebanon’s government—under heavy US pressure and with a wary eye on the possibility of intensified Israeli strikes—ordered the army to draw up a disarmament plan by the end of 2025. As EFE and local media detailed, this directive came amid fears that failing to address the issue could provoke further violence along Lebanon’s southern border, where clashes with Israel have long simmered.
Yet, the plan has faced fierce opposition from Hezbollah and its allies from the outset. On Wednesday prior to the cabinet session, Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc publicly called on Lebanese authorities to “reverse their ... unpatriotic decision,” doubling down on their refusal to even discuss the disarmament proposal. Pro-Hezbollah newspaper Al Akhbar had even suggested that Shiite ministers might refuse to participate in the meeting altogether, but ultimately, they attended—only to leave as soon as the topic was formally raised.
The walkout wasn’t limited to Hezbollah and Amal ministers. The fifth Shiite minister in the Cabinet, who is not affiliated with either party but is considered close to Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, also exited the session in solidarity. This left a conspicuous gap in the government’s ranks and underscored the depth of Shiite opposition to the army’s plan.
Friday’s cabinet session took place against a backdrop of escalating violence in southern Lebanon. Over the previous two days, Israeli air strikes had intensified, killing at least five people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry and the state-run National News Agency. These attacks, which Israel claims are aimed at preventing Hezbollah from rearming and protecting residents in northern Israel, have only hardened Hezbollah’s stance. The group maintains that any discussion of disarmament is off the table until Israel ceases its “almost daily” bombings and withdraws from five contested hills along the border—territory that remains a flashpoint between the two sides.
Hezbollah’s leaders have been blunt in their assessment of the situation. They argue that disarmament, whether advanced by the United States or by the Lebanese government under Washington’s pressure, would serve Israel’s interests and leave Lebanon vulnerable. As EFE reports, Hezbollah has flatly rejected both the US proposal and the Lebanese initiative, insisting that “such violations must stop before any disarmament dialogue can take place.”
The standoff isn’t new. According to Vijesti, Shiite ministers also walked out of a government session last month, when the military was first tasked with developing the disarmament plan. Since the US-brokered ceasefire in November 2024 brought a halt to the latest war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Shiite movement has been under mounting domestic and international pressure to relinquish its weapons. But each time the issue is raised, the response from Hezbollah and its allies has been swift and unequivocal.
Hezbollah officials have repeatedly stated that they will “treat the decision as if it did not exist,” accusing the Lebanese government of succumbing to pressure from the United States and Israel. The group’s position is clear: no disarmament until Israel withdraws its forces from the five strategic hills it occupies inside Lebanese territory and stops its airstrikes. This stance has put the government in a precarious position, as any attempt to forcibly seize Hezbollah’s weapons risks sparking civil conflict—a fear that Lebanese officials have not been shy about voicing.
The Israeli military, for its part, justifies its ongoing operations by claiming that its attacks are necessary to prevent Hezbollah from rearming and to protect Israeli civilians living near the border. This cycle of violence and retaliation has become a grim routine, with each side blaming the other for the continued instability.
Meanwhile, Lebanon’s leaders find themselves caught between competing pressures. On one side, international actors—chiefly the United States—are pushing for Hezbollah’s disarmament as a step toward regional stability and a check on Iran’s influence via its proxy. On the other, Hezbollah and its supporters argue that the group’s arsenal is essential to Lebanon’s defense, especially in light of what they see as ongoing Israeli aggression.
For the Lebanese public, the spectacle of ministerial walkouts and government paralysis is a familiar, if frustrating, one. Many worry that the continued impasse over Hezbollah’s weapons could tip the country back into violence, particularly if outside powers attempt to force the issue. As history has shown, Lebanon’s sectarian balance is fragile, and any move perceived as targeting one community over another risks reigniting old wounds.
Despite the high drama of Friday’s walkout, the future of the disarmament plan remains uncertain. With Shiite ministers refusing to engage on the issue and Hezbollah vowing to ignore any decision made without its consent, Lebanon’s government faces a daunting challenge. The coming months will test whether the country’s leaders can find a way to bridge the divide—or whether the cycle of confrontation and deadlock will continue.
For now, the message from Hezbollah and its allies is unmistakable: as long as Israeli airstrikes persist and contested territory remains occupied, any talk of disarmament is, in their view, premature. The cabinet walkout may have been dramatic, but it was also a stark reminder of just how difficult Lebanon’s path to peace and stability remains.