Lebanonupdated 22m ago2 min read
Rodolphe Haykal Sparks Lebanese Constitutional Row Over Army Critics’ ‘National Belonging’
7outlets comparedWhere the coverage agrees
6 West Asian1 OtherThis article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
Haykal asserted the army's policy is the national policy, framing critics as opposing side. The remarks triggered a constitutional row and widened political dispute over army authority and patriotism.
Save coverage image
7 outlets in this story. Read their headlines below.
Haykal’s patriotism warning
Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal sparked a political row after he told troops that “The army’s policy is the national policy, and anyone who does not agree with it is on the other side.”
“The army’s policy is the national policy, and anyone who does not agree with it is on the other side.”
Haykal added that “Anyone who speaks ill of their country’s army is not suited to Lebanon and has no right to be here,” framing critics as outside legitimate national belonging.
MP Waddah Sadek questioned whether Lebanon was now “under military rule” in which the army determined who was patriotic, and he asked, “Is the Taif Agreement no longer in force? Has the government’s collective authority to determine national policy been taken away?”
Constitutional expert Dr. Said Malek argued that the army commander is appointed by Cabinet decree on the defense minister’s recommendation under Article 19 of Legislative Decree 102/83, and he said “The Cabinet alone has the authority to set general policy in all areas.”
Lawmakers clash over authority
MP Michel Douaihy said Lebanese citizens had “the right and the duty to scrutinize state institutions, including the army,” without anyone monopolizing patriotism or questioning allegiance. MP Mark Daou insisted that “It is not for you to decide what constitutes national policy or who supports or opposes it,” and he told Haykal that in a democratic state the army commander’s duty was to protect viewpoints while focusing on security. Supporters of the military command defended Haykal as acting against a sustained campaign, and MP Jimmy Jabbour described the remarks as “self-defense” against targeting the military through press reports and leaks.
Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah said the “resistance and the Lebanese Army” were “two pillars of strength and cohesion,” and he accused critics of waging a campaign to revive plans for sectarian mini-states. Amal MP Qabalan Qabalan thanked Haykal for steering the national debate “in the right direction,” saying the army remained the guarantor of sovereignty and national dignity.
Presidential cover and legal stakes
President Joseph Aoun urged politicians “not to target the army—its leadership, officers, and personnel—for reasons that do not align with Lebanon’s supreme national interest,” and he welcomed Army Commander General Rudolf Kahel at the Republican Palace.
Aoun’s office said he discussed “the security situation in the country in general, and in the south in particular,” and the tasks the army carries out to maintain security and stability and implement political authority decisions.
Defense Minister Michel M?ns? (Me?shal Mansi) said “the armed forces adhere to the political decision issued by the executive authority and the directives of the President of the Republic, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.”
The defense minister also warned that recent statements had raised the issue of Haykal’s resignation or dismissal and treated him as a subordinate employee obliged to implement rather than object or express an opinion.
Constitutional and legal affairs expert Dr. Said Malek argued that “should the army chief overstep the policies of the Cabinet, this is regarded as an infraction with legal consequences,” tying the dispute to how Lebanon’s political authority defines policy.