Lebanon has entered a new phase following government decisions regarding the disarmament of militant groups in the country, including Hezbollah, and the US' involvement in it - moves that have deepened political and public divisions and raised questions over Hezbollah's next steps.
In sessions on Tuesday and Thursday, the Lebanese cabinet removed the decades-old "legitimate" cover for Hezbollah's weapons, enshrined in the slogan of "the army, the people, and the resistance", and approved the gradual dismantling of all non-state armed groups, "including Hezbollah".
However, the constitutional legitimacy of such a decision remains highly contested. While both the president and government are recognised as legitimate, they were not elected with a mandate to disarm Hezbollah or redefine Lebanon’s defence policy.
The Taif Accords, often cited as a foundation for disarmament, were never put to a national referendum, and the parliament that approved them had not been elected in over 20 years at the time.
The US - Israel's top ally and key funder of its military campaigns in the region - has expressed strong approval of the move with US envoy Tom Barrack, key architect of the proposal, calling it "historic, courageous and just".
The move prompted ministers of Hezbollah and its ally, the Amal Movement, to walk out of Thursday's session, drawing sharp rhetoric from the two parties and their allies against Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's government, and sparking protests by their supporters in Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and the south.
On the other hand, the government's decision won strong support among Lebanese opposed to Hezbollah - mostly Christian right wing parties - with backers calling the steps "historic" and a foundation for building "a state".
The measures were also welcomed internationally, particularly by France and Arab states, while Iran backed Hezbollah's position.
What's next for Hezbollah?
Sources close to Hezbollah told The New Arab that both the group and the Amal Movement were "studying all possible steps, which must serve the national interest".
"There is no intention to drag the country into conflict or explosion, even though some tools of foreign powers inside Lebanon want this scenario and are working toward it," the sources added.
They said that the Shia parties' objection was not to the principle of exclusive state control over weapons, but to "the timing and the implementation of an American-imposed paper that fully serves Israeli interests", as well as what they described as a reversal linked to President Joseph Aoun's oath of office and the ministerial statement of Salam’s government.
They stressed that the state should prioritise stopping Israeli attacks, which killed a journalist on Friday, over other issues.
The sources confirmed there was currently "no intention" for the Shia ministers to resign, adding that their withdrawal from Thursday's session was a protest against decisions "taken quickly and without enough discussion".
They described the street protests as "spontaneous and unorganised", reflecting anger among a wide base that feels targeted, while insisting Hezbollah and Amal were working to keep demonstrations under control.
Amal MP Qassem Hashem told The New Arab that the cabinet meeting could have been postponed "for more consultation and study", criticising the US paper as "dictates that do not fall under any framework of Lebanon’s interest".
While agreeing in principle on eventual exclusive state control over weapons, he said the question was whether the timing served the national interest "in this sensitive stage for Lebanon and the region".
Hashem said the approach should be "step by step" and aimed at restoring solidarity among the Lebanese.
He, too, stressed that Thursday's protests were spontaneous, warning against external pressures dictating Lebanon's future and criticising the government for focusing on a "foreign issue" while people were being killed daily in Israeli attacks.
Political analyst George Alam told The New Arab that the developments were part of preparations for the UN Security Council's renewal of the UNIFIL peacekeeping mandate at the end of August.
He said the cabinet's decisions were intended as a message to the international community that Lebanon had sought to reassert state authority over war and peace decisions.
Alam warned that public displays of division risked fuelling internal conflict, saying "any civil war will dismantle the country and place sectarian enclaves under the mercy of regional and international powers", which was not in Hezbollah’s interest.