Gaza ceasefire shows power of armed resistance, says Hezbollah

Youssef Al Zein, head of Hezbollah’s media office, has framed the Gaza ceasefire deal as a moment of vindication for armed deterrence, as reported by The National on October 14th.

Gaza’s capacity to argue terms of the ceasefire in its favour, he argued, demonstrated that surrendering weapons under conditions of occupation remains a luxury Lebanon cannot afford.

His comments are spoken amid a divisive climate in Lebanon on the subject of armed resistance, where the Lebanese government has called for the disarmament of Hezbollah by the end of 2025. This call to disarm has been met by strong criticism from the armed group, with its secretary general, Naim Qassem, accusing the government of “handing over” the country. There were also protests in support of Hezbollah following the Lebanese’s government’s backing of the group’s disarmament.

For Al Zein, the outcome of the Trump-brokered Gaza ceasefire deal, reveals the limits of a ceasefire agreement in an asymmetrical military landscape. What mattered, he suggested, was not the mediation of Washington or Ankara, but the fact that Hamas still possessed arms when it entered negotiations. For Hezbollah, the message is simple, disarmament before guarantees of sovereignty is a strategic misstep.

The logic is not without precedent. When a ceasefire was agreed in Lebanon in November 2024, Israel was to halt strikes and withdraw its troops from the south, while Hezbollah began a phased redeployment north of the Litani River. Yet, soon, the arrangement frayed. Israeli air strikes resumed, justified as targeting Hezbollah operatives, and more than a hundred Lebanese civilians were killed. The mediators, primarily the United States and France, appeared unable to enforce compliance. Al Zein warned that if the mediators for Gaza fail much like that of Lebanon’s, violations will take form.

The pattern echoes across the region: truces that mask asymmetry, negotiations that reward force, and international guarantees that dissolve in the face of Israeli aggression. Al Zein’s remarks, framed in the language of resistance, point to Hezbollah’s conviction that arms remain the only reliable shield against occupation. Disarmament, he insists, can come only once Israel halts incursions, frees Lebanese detainees, and allows reconstruction by withdrawing from the south of the country.

This Gaza ceasefire, then, is less an end than it is a pause, in a regional argument about legitimacy and the right to national self-determination. As aid trickles in, reconstruction begins and mediators hail a fragile calm, Hezbollah’s lesson from Gaza is not one of reconciliation but of resolve.

In a region where Israeli aggression continues, regardless of international law or ceasefire agreements, bringing guns to the table is a non-negotiable form of leverage, from the perspective of Youssef Al Zein.