Hostages, bargaining chips and sovereignty

In conflict zones across the world, prisoners have long occupied a space between law and leverage. From Cold War exchanges to contemporary ceasefire deals, detainees are often folded into broader political negotiations and their freedom contingent more on political circumstances than legal status. Lebanon’s historic political trajectory serves as an exemplary case study. Prisoner swaps are framed as humanitarian gestures, confidence-building measures, or steps toward de-escalation. Yet when detention itself becomes a tool of pressure, when human beings are held to extract concessions, the line between negotiation and coercion begins to blur.

That tension now sits at the heart of Lebanon’s unfolding detainee crisis.

Since the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, the issue of Lebanese nationals held in Israeli custody has taken on a new dimension. Their return has become instrumentalized by Israel to reach a security agreement. Simply put, detainees are being used as leverage in broader political talks over borders and sovereignty. Under international humanitarian law, holding individuals to compel action constitutes hostage-taking, regardless of whether those detained are combatants or civilians.

The state’s duty to protect

In international practice, protecting nationals detained abroad is among the most fundamental obligations of a sovereign state. Governments negotiate, mediate, apply diplomatic pressure, document violations, and pursue legal recourse precisely because citizenship creates a binding relationship of protection. When that duty is not visibly exercised, sovereignty weakens, and alternative actors step into the vacuum. In Lebanon, that vacuum has historically been filled by Hezbollah. However, recent developments have brought the question of state responsibility into sharper focus.

On January 29, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam met at the Grand Serail with a delegation from the Committee of Families of Lebanese detainees held in Israeli prisons in the presence of Hezbollah MP Hussein Haj Hassan. According to the National News Agency, the delegation submitted a memorandum stating that at least 20 Lebanese nationals remain in Israeli custody. Some were allegedly abducted after the ceasefire, and the International Committee of the Red Cross has not been granted access to check on them. Haj Hassan described the meeting as positive and said Salam pledged to make the detainee file a national priority, pursuing it through diplomatic, legal, and international channels. Families welcomed the assurances and called for intensified engagement with the Red Cross and international bodies.

Israel has also publicly indicated that detainee releases are tied to broader political negotiations involving border demarcation and sovereignty arrangements. In March 2025, five detainees were released in connection with the launch of three joint working groups between Israel and Lebanon. Legal advocates argue that linking detainee releases to political concessions transforms legal obligations into bargaining tools, a practice that may meet the definition of hostage-taking.

Hezbollah and the politics of protection

For decades, Hezbollah has justified retaining its independent military arsenal through three claims that remain central to its narrative: defending Lebanon from Israel, deterring aggression, and securing the release of Lebanese detainees. The Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and subsequent prisoner exchanges were presented as victories of armed resistance. Each detainee returned reinforced a perception that armed leverage, not diplomacy, delivers results.

This narrative has been sustained by the Lebanese state’s chronic weakness. When families of detainees rely on Hezbollah representatives for updates or mediation, their reliance and allegiance is therefore transmitted to the party rather than the state. Hezbollah has positioned itself as the most vocal advocate for Lebanese detainees in Israel. Its MPs accompany families to official meetings, its statements frame detentions as evidence of ongoing Israeli aggression, and it emphasizes that only “resistance” has historically secured releases. In doing so, Hezbollah fills both a political and psychological gap. If the state appears hesitant or ineffective, Hezbollah’s claim to indispensable guardianship strengthens.

The stakes of state leadership

None of these steps guarantee swift outcomes as Israel’s stated linkage of detainees to broader negotiations suggests that resolution will be complex and politically charged. Regardless, these steps ensure that the detained are a national priority and build legitimacy. If the Lebanese state consistently leads, visibly and institutionally, it begins to erode the claim that armed autonomy is structurally necessary. Lebanon is navigating the politically sensitive repatriation of Syrian prisoners, confronting its own judicial backlog, and addressing unresolved cases of Lebanese missing in Syrian prisons dating back decades.

In Lebanon’s case, the question is not simply how detainees will be brought home. It is who will bring them home, and under what authority. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s meeting with the families may represent the beginning of a more assertive state role, or it may remain a symbolic moment in a long history of divided authority.

Lebanon’s detainee file is not merely a humanitarian case but remains a test of state authority. When the protection of citizens becomes contingent on armed leverage, political bargaining, or partisan mediation, the state’s authority erodes and alternative structures of guardianship gain legitimacy. Hezbollah’s longstanding narrative rests precisely on this vacuum: that only resistance, not institutions, secures Lebanese rights.

If Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s government succeeds in institutionalizing the detainee file, it would not only secure individual releases but would begin to re-anchor protection within the framework of sovereign authority. That shift would not eliminate political contestation, nor would it dissolve Hezbollah’s influence overnight. But it would challenge the premise that armed autonomy is structurally necessary for national defence and dignity.