Lebanon's Ambassador to Washington … unabated

The intimidation of Lebanon’s ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamade Moawad, by a Hezbollah-affiliated lawyer has brought a deeper and more sensitive question to the forefront: the law criminalizing dealings with Israel, and whether it remains compatible with Lebanon’s pursuit of peace.

As Lebanon enters direct negotiations with Israel under a U.S.-sponsored trilateral framework, the case against Moawad has raised questions about the limits of diplomatic engagement and the legal framework governing it. Voices are increasingly calling for the law to be reconsidered, opening the door to a debate over whether it should be amended or abolished.

A Hezbollah-affiliated Lebanese lawyer, Hassan Adel Bazzi, filed a complaint against Moawad following a September article published by Beirut Review. According to the report, Moawad contacted Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter to inquire about the condition of his son, who had been wounded in an attack.

The complaint was reportedly referred by Lebanon’s attorney-general to the government commissioner at the military court for consideration of possible legal action. While as of recent news government commissioner to the military court, Judge Claude Ghanem, has decided to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that no criminal offense had been established, the matter has raised concerns but also revived calls to suspend and discuss the law that criminalize the dealings with Israel that has yielded no results over the years. Several voices were raised that it was time to discuss the issue and consider amending the law, with the matter to be addressed by Parliament.

The controversy has also raised questions about the limits of military court jurisdiction, particularly when complaints concern civil matters and the conduct of public officials.

As a general rule, matters relating to the Israeli aspect fall within the jurisdiction of the government commissioner at the Military Court. The referral is a routine administrative procedure by the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, referring the matter to the Military Public Prosecutor for review. It does not mean that the Military Public Prosecutor has brought charges or initiated proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.

In Lebanon, the jurisdiction of the Military Court also covers matters involving dealings with Israel and weapons, even when the individuals concerned are civilians.

Lebanon’s Justice Minister, Adel Nassar told The Beiruter that “any case submitted to the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation may be referred to the competent public prosecutor’s office for consideration of the notification or complaint”, adding “it is for the competent prosecution office to determine its position on the case.”

The referral itself does not constitute a positive or negative position on the merits of the case by the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation.

An arbitrary complaint

Legal and constitutional expert Said Malek was adamant, “it is firmly established that Ambassador Hamade Moawad is performing her diplomatic duties under the directives of His Excellency the President of the Republic and the instructions of the government. Accordingly, any contact she may have undertaken, particularly where such contact was expressly directed by the state, cannot be held against her”.

He pointed out that ambassador Hamadeh “is a public official carrying out her duties to the fullest extent”.

Malek told The Beiruter that

The complaint filed against her amounts to an arbitrary complaint driven by political motives. In reality, and from a legal standpoint, she bears absolutely no liability for the actions she has taken or the steps she has undertaken.

The legal expert explained that “It is well established and beyond doubt that the filing of a complaint does not, under any circumstances, amount to a conviction”, adding “anyone has the right to file a complaint however, he said, “it is the judiciary that conducts the investigation and determines whether a criminal offense has been committed.”

Lebanon’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified that reports circulating about judicial proceedings against Moawad, are inaccurate.
The Ministry stressed that any judicial measure against public officials requires the explicit approval of the competent minister, in accordance with the applicable legal procedures.
The Ministry also confirmed that Ambassador Moawad’s mission was entrusted to her by His Excellency the President of the Republic, in agreement with the Prime Minister, in accordance with the relevant constitutional provisions.

The United States has also weighed in on the case.
A State Department spokesperson said Washington was aware of the complaint, describing its filing by a lawyer affiliated with Hezbollah as a troubling development.

“It is embarrassing that a military court is handling a complaint against Lebanon's ambassador in Washington simply because she was implementing her legitimate government's policy and participating in US-led negotiations,” the statement said.

The State Department argued that Lebanon’s military justice system should prioritize prosecuting Hezbollah operatives planning to act against the Lebanese government and its citizens, rather than targeting officials implementing government policy.

It also called on Lebanon to repeal laws and procedures that it said enable the political persecution of citizens and diplomats, while Hezbollah operatives systematically receive protection.

“We have no patience for obstruction,” the statement said.

Diplomacy amid security pressures

The controversy comes amid heightened security concerns over Hezbollah’s activities and the Lebanese government’s efforts to consolidate state authority.

According to reports, Lebanese authorities intercepted a shipment of explosives allegedly smuggled in a truck by two suspects affiliated with Hezbollah from eastern Lebanon toward Beirut’s southern suburbs. The seizure has prompted speculation about possible political assassinations and renewed calls for the state to disarm the group by force. Hezbollah has refused to comply with Beirut’s March decision to ban its military activities.

The developments have also unfolded against a dispute over the group’s finances. Hezbollah recently claimed to have funds available to support its activities and affected families, while the United States rejected claims that it had received money from Iran, with the State Department maintaining that the purported funds did not exist.

The Iran-backed group’s position has come under pressure following its weakened military position after two wars with Israel that took Lebanon hostage, also the government’s decision to place weapons under state authority and remove the concept of “resistance” from the official political framework governing the group’s military role. Hezbollah’s confrontation with the state risks shifting political and security tensions inward, at a time when Lebanon needs stronger institutions and a unified national decision-making process.