“Lebanon Debate”
After the Israeli media announced, led by Channel 12, that Israel was preparing to release five Lebanese and hand them over to Lebanon in coordination with the United States, a practical development emerged today, represented by the Lebanese army receiving the young man, Malik Kamal Ghazi, who was released by Israel through the International Red Cross, before transferring him to Tire Hospital for medical examinations, and then to his home.
Channel 12 had reported that the release of detainees comes within the framework of ongoing negotiations with Beirut, while the issue of detainees and missing persons is at the forefront of discussion between the two parties.
Ghazi, 20 years old, went missing in the Ain Ata-Rashaya area in October 2025, while he was out exercising, before information later emerged indicating that he had been kidnapped and taken to Israel. The Lebanese army received him at the Naqoura crossing after completing his release.
However, the release of Ghazi, on the other hand, opens a wide range of questions about the nature of his legal status, especially in light of his inclusion in the media among what Israel described as “prisoners of war.”
According to circulating data, Ghazi’s name was not included in the lists of prisoners that Lebanon had previously handed over to international bodies and the American side, which raises question marks about the basis on which Israel relied in classifying his release as part of the process of releasing “prisoners of war.”
Here lies the paradox: If Ghazi was a civilian who was arrested and detained after he went missing while in a Lebanese region, then describing him as a “prisoner of war” is not automatic just because his detention occurred in the context of an armed conflict, especially since the available data indicate that Israel kidnapped him outside the context of military operations. The status of prisoner of war in international humanitarian law has specific conditions, while civilians detained in the context of conflicts enjoy different legal protections.
According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Third Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war, while the Fourth Geneva Convention provides broad protection to civilians detained in the context of conflict, and therefore they are not automatically treated as prisoners of war.
If Ghazi was detained as a civilian and without a legitimate legal basis, the issue becomes more serious, especially since international humanitarian law explicitly prohibits the taking of hostages, which requires putting an end to this detention and releasing him in accordance with the relevant legal rules.
Hence, the question arises: Is Israel trying to present Ghazi’s release as a negotiated achievement and show itself as if it had made a concession in the prisoners’ file, with regard to, according to the available data, a Lebanese civilian whose situation should have been dealt with in accordance with the legal rules governing the detention of civilians?
Most importantly: Is Israel trying to sell Lebanon an imaginary achievement after the US ambassador’s visit to Tel Aviv and his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, especially after its refusal to make concessions in the course of negotiations over seven rounds?
In any case, the receipt of Malek Ghazi and his return to his family constitutes positive and humanitarian news, but that does not negate the need to clarify the legal basis for his detention, the period he spent in captivity, and the capacity on which he was detained.
Waiting for the identity and fate of the other detainees to become clear, the current release process remains a step that requires careful reading, to explore the extent of Israeli seriousness in the negotiation process, or is what is happening nothing more than throwing ash in the eyes and selling an illusion to the Lebanese state?
