Lebanese Cabinet Bans Hezbollah's Military Activity, Orders Handover of Weapons

I cannot find reporting of a Lebanese cabinet decision to ban Hezbollah’s military activity or order a formal handover of weapons in the materials provided.

“To end its devastating war with Israel, Lebanon pledged to disarm Hezbollah under U”

Middle East Transparent

The single supplied article from Middle East Transparent focuses instead on the Lebanese Armed Forces’ operational weaknesses and its strained relationship with Hezbollah, describing how "the Lebanese Armed Forces groped blindly when confronting Hezbollah, often relying on scraps of intelligence funneled to it by Israel" and noting how "serious efforts only began about a year ago" to build intelligence networks.

Middle East Transparent

The article does not cite any cabinet declaration or a weapons-handover order; it concentrates on institutional fragility and political constraints within Lebanon.

The supplied reporting emphasizes the Lebanese Armed Forces’ (LAF) material and intelligence shortcomings rather than a governmental crackdown on Hezbollah.

Middle East Transparent depicts LAF logistics as rudimentary — "troops in the field frequently beg civilians for drinking water or scraps of food, knocking on doors wherever they deploy" — and argues the army is "dangerously exposed against a far better-armed Hezbollah."

Middle East Transparent

This framing implies that even if a cabinet order existed, the LAF would face severe practical limits in enforcing any unilateral disarmament of Hezbollah.

The article highlights Hezbollah’s entrenched intelligence and political influence, which the author presents as a central obstacle to state efforts to control the militia’s arms.

“To end its devastating war with Israel, Lebanon pledged to disarm Hezbollah under U”

Middle East Transparent

Middle East Transparent says "Hezbollah maintains its own formidable intelligence apparatus, relentlessly monitoring the Lebanese military, profiling each officer and gauging his stance toward the so-called 'resistance,'" and describes how officers deemed sympathetic are rewarded with promotions.

It further claims that Lebanese public signals — for example, the Armed Forces’ social media posts condemning Israel before US visits — function as ritual demonstrations of loyalty to Hezbollah, illustrating how dense political surveillance and co-option complicate any cabinet mandate to disarm the group.

Beyond institutional limits, the piece situates the problem in Lebanon’s fractured sectarian politics and recent history, suggesting that political consensus is a prerequisite for compelling Hezbollah to disarm — a consensus the country lacks.

Middle East Transparent recalls the 2005 Cedar Revolution as proof that Lebanon could isolate armed actors when broad domestic and international backing existed, but it argues that Hezbollah fractured that coalition by co-opting Michel Aoun’s bloc.

Middle East Transparent

Lebanon’s sectarian system "frames every confrontation not as state versus militia, but as other sects versus Shia," which entrenches paralysis, and the author concludes that the state’s inability to directly engage the Shia community outside Hezbollah channels undermines any plausible cabinet-enforced weapons handover.