Efforts to enforce the decision to restrict weapons solely to the Lebanese state, beginning with Palestinian refugee camps, are facing major obstacles, according to Nidaa Al Watan. The military wing of Hamas has resisted the move, employing strategies similar to those used by Hezbollah to maintain its arsenal.

Sources told Nidaa Al Watan that Hamas has expressed its willingness to engage in dialogue with Lebanese authorities. However, the group insists that discussions must go beyond military and security issues, extending to political, social, and legal matters concerning Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. This stance suggests that Hamas is seeking civil rights for Palestinian refugees, describing these rights as "legitimate." Critics argue that such demands could pave the way for what they consider a form of de facto resettlement.

While Hamas sets conditions for engagement, Palestinian sources reveal that Fatah, Hamas's rival faction, is prepared to hand over its weapons but only in coordination with Hamas. Fatah’s stance is that no single Palestinian faction should remain armed within the refugee camps, underscoring the need for a collective approach.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that Hamas’s disarmament hinges on obtaining approval from Hezbollah, a key player whose consent has not yet been secured.

Security reports indicate that Hamas activity within certain Palestinian camps, particularly in Ain al-Hilweh, has been increasing. The group is believed to possess guided anti-tank missiles (including Kornet and locally produced models), explosives, light weapons, and large quantities of ammunition. Efforts to introduce encrypted communication systems into the camps have also been noted, suggesting Hamas is working to secure the movements of its operatives. Weapons are reportedly being stored in abandoned houses or underground bunkers across several camps in Beirut and southern Lebanon.

Military experts note that the scenario of Hamas handing over its weapons is far more complicated than recent disarmament efforts involving other Palestinian factions such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command and Fatah Intifada. In late 2024, the Lebanese Army successfully took control of three military bases in the Western and Central Bekaa and Rashaya regions. Experts argue that the disarmament of these factions was relatively straightforward because they were less deeply embedded in the local power structures than Hamas.

The legal framework regarding Palestinian weapons in Lebanon is shaped by a series of international agreements, resolutions from the Arab League, and the political context.

Following the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990), the Taif Agreement effectively nullified the Cairo Agreement of 1969, which had regulated the Palestinian presence in Lebanon. The end of this legal framework marked the cessation of Palestinian factions' ability to expand their armed presence outside refugee camps. A compromise was reached, with armed Palestinian fighters confined to the camps and heavy and medium weapons handed over to the Lebanese Army.

In 2006, the Lebanese-Palestinian national dialogue included an agreement to remove Palestinian weapons from outside the camps within six months and to address the issue of weapons inside the camps. However, the full implementation of these commitments has stalled.

The international push to restrict all weapons to the Lebanese state is reinforced by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701, which call for the disarmament of all non-state actors in Lebanon. The Arab League has consistently reaffirmed its support for Lebanon's sovereignty, stressing that the implementation of international resolutions and the restriction of weapons to the state are critical for Lebanon’s unity and stability.

Despite the international legal clarity surrounding the status of Palestinian weapons and Hezbollah’s arms, significant security issues remain unresolved. One of the most pressing concerns is Hezbollah’s ground communications network, known as LITN. This network, which spans Lebanon, was initially set up as a secure alternative to mobile phone communications, protecting Hezbollah’s communications from external monitoring. However, recent Israeli technological advancements have exposed vulnerabilities in the network, particularly following the destruction of beeper devices connected to it.

Experts point out that if Israel has been able to infiltrate such a critical communications system, it may be time for Hezbollah and Lebanese authorities to reconsider dismantling this network. The breach has exposed a fundamental weakness in the security infrastructure that has long been considered vital to Hezbollah’s operations.