Elias Bejjani on Naim Qassem’s Speech: Insolence, Delusion, and Street-Level Vulgarity in Open Rebellion Against Lebanon and the World Elias Bejjani/January 19/2026
Sheikh Naïm Qassem’s latest speech was not a mere slip of the tongue or a momentary emotional outburst. It was a blatant declaration of total estrangement from Lebanon as a state, and a brazen rebellion against the Lebanese people—their institutions, their decisions, and their national dignity. It was a speech drawn from the gutter language of the street, not from the position of a political leader, deliberately confrontational, crude, and saturated with arrogance and coercion.
When Qassem declares that Hezbollah’s weapons will remain “by force, over the necks of the Lebanese,” he is not expressing a political stance; he is effectively signing a document of internal occupation. That statement alone is sufficient to strip away all the masks of “resistance,” “protection,” and “defense of the homeland,” revealing the naked truth: we are facing an armed organization that views the Lebanese as subjects, not citizens, and sees the state as an obstacle to be smashed, not an authority to which it is accountable.
Speech of Verbal Thuggery
What was labeled a “speech” was nothing more than a bundle of obscene, street-level insults and a reckless flight forward. Qassem did not debate, did not argue, did not reason. He insulted, threatened, and waved the specter of civil war, as if Lebanon were a private estate and Lebanese blood merely a bargaining chip.
He targeted the President of the Republic, attacked the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and appointed himself guardian over the government, ordering it either to submit, to silence itself, or to change course. This is not the language of leadership; it is the language of a militia in distress. It is not a sign of strength, but of weakness and fear. The tighter the noose grows around the party’s regional patron in Tehran, the louder the shouting becomes in Beirut’s southern suburbs, Hezbollah’s stronghold. And the closer Lebanon comes to a serious reckoning over placing weapons exclusively under state authority, the more Qassem emerges threatening that “not one stone will be left upon another.”
Weapons are Burdens and Threats
The most dangerous aspect of Qassem’s speech is not merely its vulgarity or its detachment from reality and actual capabilities, but its open contempt for everything Lebanese—national sovereignty, civil peace, and its servile submission to Iranian dictates. He trivialized and leapt over international resolutions, trampled the Armistice Agreement that binds Lebanon and prohibits any armed organization outside state legitimacy, mocked Arab and international consensus, ignored Israel’s military power, and insulted and derided the will of the vast majority of Lebanese who want a normal state—without rogue weapons and without militias that know nothing but stupidity, hatred, and the glorification and sanctification of suicidal death.
When Qassem challenges the state and declares his weapons beyond any discussion, he implicitly admits that these weapons no longer serve any national purpose. They serve only one function: protecting the party’s apparatus and its mini-state, even if that comes at the ruins of Lebanon itself.
Branding Sovereignty as Treason… to Cover Defeat
Qassem reverted to the easiest weapon of all: accusations of treason. Anyone who demands state sovereignty is a “traitor.” Anyone who works through diplomacy is a “tool.” Anyone who rejects his weapons is “inciting civil war.” But the truth is far too clear to be concealed by insults: the party’s project has reached a dead end. The illusions of “victory” can no longer feed a hungry people, rebuild a destroyed city, or rescue a collapsed economy.
What Comes After This Defiance?
After this speech, silence is no longer an option, and evasiveness is no longer acceptable. What Naïm Qassem said imposes firm and unequivocal steps on the Lebanese government—not vague, grey statements:
The immediate expulsion of Hezbollah and Amal Movement ministers from the government, because anyone who threatens the state cannot be a partner in governing it.
A clear and official declaration of the end of the state of war with Israel, and an end to its use as a pretext for retaining weapons.
The designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization at the national level, consistent with its threatening and insurrectionary behavior.
The arrest of Hezbollah leaders involved in threatening civil peace and their referral to the judiciary, rather than rewarding them with positions of power.
Conclusion
Naïm Qassem’s speech was not a defense of “resistance,” but a declaration of open hostility toward Lebanon. It was not a show of strength, but a fit of political panic. It was not directed at Israel or the outside world, but at the Lebanese themselves—as if to tell them: “The state is finished, and we are the alternative.”
Here lies the crux of the matter: Either a state, or Naïm Qassem. Either the rule of law, or the logic of “by force, over your necks.”History does not forgive the hesitant.
