Lebanese citizens who fled to Israel after its withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 may now be able to return under a sweeping new amnesty law, but those who acquired Israeli citizenship will first have to give it up.
The provision is among the most politically sensitive elements of Lebanon’s first general amnesty since 1991, a law passed by parliament on Wednesday after years of negotiations over which prisoners, fugitives and former combatants should benefit.
It revives a long-stalled effort to reopen the contentious status of thousands of Lebanese who feld to Israel as Israeli forces withdrew from the south in May 2000, ending a 22-year occupation.
Among those who left were members of the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army, as well as their families and other civilians who feared reprisals after the collapse of Israel's occupation.
Under the new law, Lebanese who went to Israel but were not involved militarily or in security work with the South Lebanon Army may return, according to Lebanese media reports and lawmakers involved in the legislation.
MP Ziad Hawat told Al Jadeed TV that any Lebanese citizen living in Israel who had not served in the South Lebanon Army and was not the subject of a judicial ruling could return once the amnesty law was published in the official gazette, provided they relinquished Israeli citizenship.
The legislation builds on a 2011 law that sought to regulate the return of Lebanese citizens who had fled to Israel but whose implementation remained stalled for years because it required further government measures.
The new amnesty removes a longstanding legal obstacle to their return covered by the earlier law, while maintaining exclusions for offences including treason, espionage and unlawful dealings with Israel.
The law stops short of granting a blanket pardon for former South Lebanon Army members or others accused of collaborating militarily or in intelligence work with Israel.
No amnesty for collaborators
Nizar Saghieh, executive director of the Legal Agenda, told The New Arab that the law “did not grant an amnesty to collaborators for the violations they committed”, but rather benefited their families.
“What they did in this law was remove the need for the decree issued under the 2011 law,” Saghieh said. “But the problem is that these families have grown since they fled in 2000. Some have acquired Israeli citizenship, and perhaps some have entered the Israeli army. This will create a problem.”
The provision raises further questions over a generation born and raised in Israel over the past 26 years, some of whom have never lived in Lebanon and may hold Israeli citizenship from birth.
Even those who acquired Israeli citizenship could be eligible to return, provided they relinquish it, raising practical questions over how that process would be verified and how authorities would handle cases involving people born in Israel, those married to Israelis or children whose legal status differs from that of their Lebanese parents.
There are no official figures for how many people could ultimately qualify. Lebanese media have cited estimates of around 4,000 people still living in Israel, though the figure has not been formally confirmed and not all would automatically be eligible to return.
The Israel provision is only one part of a much broader amnesty package that could affect thousands of prisoners and wanted people across Lebanon.
The law covers offences committed before 1 March 2026, while excluding a series of crimes including intentional killing, terrorism offences against civilians and security forces, military crimes, treason and espionage.
It also provides sentence reductions for some prisoners whose offences are not covered by the full amnesty.
The legislation emerged from years of sectarian and political bargaining. Christian parties, including the Lebanese Forces, had long pushed for a resolution to the case of Lebanese families who fled to Israel, while Sunni politicians championed the cause of Islamist detainees and Shia parties, namely the Amal Movement, had pressed for relief in cases involving drug offences.
Saghieh criticised that approach, telling TNA that the law had turned accountability from “the principle” into “the exception”.
“The major observation we have about the law is the breadth of the amnesty,” he said. “Accountability should remain the principle and amnesty the exception, but what happened was the opposite.”
He described the negotiations as a form of political and sectarian bargaining in which each faction sought concessions for its own constituency.
The law was nevertheless welcomed by some in Lebanon as a long-delayed attempt to address prison overcrowding and unresolved cases dating back decades.