Thirty-nine prisoners identified, but an unknown number of missing persons
How many Lebanese are currently detained in Israel? Despite several rounds of direct negotiations and the recent release of prisoners, Beirut still lacks an exhaustive list. The information available as at 23 September 2026 refers to 39 identified Lebanese detainees, plus an unknown number of missing persons whose fate has not been established.
This uncertainty is not just a statistical problem. During the seventh round of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, the Lebanese delegation addressed the question of detainees and presented a list of names. According to available information, this list was itself incomplete. The Israeli side did not provide any information to establish the total number of Lebanese detainees, their place of detention or their situation.
The problem is compounded by difficulties in obtaining independent information. Israel reportedly refused to transmit a complete list of Lebanese detainees to the International Committee of the Red Cross and prevented its representatives from meeting with certain prisoners. In the absence of regular access to such persons, the verification of their health, place of detention and circumstances of their capture becomes particularly difficult.
Most recent developments show that the available lists can be exceeded. A Lebanese considered missing since 2024 was finally identified as being detained in Israel. His name was not previously listed by the organizations following the file. This discovery brings the number of known detainees to 39, but raises a more important question: how many other persons considered missing are actually detained?
Liberations that reveal census flaws
The last releases brought new elements. They also showed the limitations of the Lebanese census system.
On 3 September 2026, Malek Ghazi was released and handed over to the Lebanese authorities through the International Committee of the Red Cross. Other releases followed. Hassan Chour and Hussein Ayache, two Lebanese, as well as Assaad Hseikeh and Wissam Sammaoui, two Syrians, also regained freedom.
Of particular concern is the fact that none of these five names were, according to available information, on the list previously established by the Lebanese association responsible for monitoring the record of prisoners and former detainees.
The problem therefore goes beyond a simple difference of a few names. Persons were detained for several months while Lebanese structures responsible for monitoring the case did not necessarily identify them as prisoners.
At the same time, the testimonies of the released persons provided new information. One of the former detainees reportedly confirmed that he had met at least seven Lebanese detainees whose names were already on the list. This testimony is an important element, as it provides direct confirmation of the presence of persons whose names Beirut knew but on whom Israel did not communicate enough.
These testimonies could now become one of the main sources for reconstructing the actual list of detainees. Each released prisoner may be questioned about the persons he met, the places in which he was transferred, the approximate dates and the conditions of detention. By crossing this information, it becomes possible to make a partial mapping of the detention system.
Three old files still in the list
The census does not concern only those captured since the beginning of the new phase of the conflict in 2024. Three much older files remain associated with the issue of Lebanese detainees or missing persons.
The oldest was Yahya Skaff, whose fate had remained controversial since 1978. His case dates back to the operation of the coastal road in Israel that year. His family and Lebanese structures following the file have always maintained that he survived and that he was detained. Israel, for its part, challenged this version. The lack of definitive clarification has kept his name at the heart of the case for almost half a century.
The second case mentioned was Abdallah Alian, who was associated with an disappearance dating back to 1981.
The third is Mohammad Farran, whose file dates back to 2005.
These three cases must be distinguished from catches taken since 2024. Their seniority, different circumstances and lack of data make their processing specific. However, they show that the issue of missing persons between Lebanon and Israel does not begin with the recent war.
The number of 39 should therefore be handled with caution. It corresponds to the cases currently identified as detainees in the available information. It does not mean that 39 persons have all been captured since 2024, nor that this figure represents the final number of persons detained.
Catches made within Lebanese territory
The testimony of the recently released prisoners also provides information on the circumstances of their arrest. Several of them claim to have been captured within Lebanese territory.
According to their accounts, they were not armed at the time of their capture and were not directly involved in fighting against Israeli forces. These statements constitute their testimony and must be presented as such until complete independent documentation is available.
The issue of where to catch is legally important. An arrest made during an incursion inside Lebanon does not raise the same questions as a capture during an armed confrontation or into Israeli territory.
Three other persons were reportedly captured recently in Halta, Arqoub region, Hasbaya District. These new cases show that the file remains evolving. Release occurs while new catches are reported.
The number of prisoners can therefore change rapidly, making it even more necessary to create a centralized register. Such a register should include the full name, date of birth, date and place of disappearance, known circumstances, available testimony and the last possible confirmed place of detention.
Why doesn’t Beirut have a definitive list yet?
Several reasons may explain the shortcomings.
The first is due to the very conditions of war. In border areas, some people disappear without direct witnesses. They may have been killed, injured, displaced or captured. As long as no bodies are found and no detention is recognized, they remain classified as missing persons.
The second difficulty is the lack of complete Israeli information. If the detaining authority does not quickly transmit the identity of the captured persons, Lebanese families and authorities may stay for several months without knowing whether a person is alive.
The third difficulty is the multiplicity of lists. The authorities, prisoners’ associations, families, municipalities and various organizations each have partial information. These data do not always appear to have been collected in a single file regularly updated.
The September releases illustrate this weakness. When a released detainee is not on the list used to track the case, it means either that his disappearance had not been properly reported or that the information had not been circulated between the various institutions.
A fourth challenge concerns Syrian nationals captured in Lebanon. Their presence in the same places of detention as Lebanese may complicate follow-up if the cases are dealt with separately according to nationality.
Israeli silence becomes an issue in the negotiations
The issue of detainees has now been introduced into direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. During the seventh cycle, the delegation of Lebanon presented the file and provided a list.
The lack of a detailed response from the Israeli side, however, prevents progress on several fundamental issues: how many people are detained? Where are they? What are the reasons for their detention? Do they have access to a lawyer? Can the International Committee of the Red Cross meet them? Has their family been officially informed?
These questions may seem elementary. However, they are precisely those to which families are still seeking answers.
The next round of negotiations could therefore be used to request a formal nominative list. A mere exchange of prisoners would not be sufficient to resolve the problem if the exact number of detainees remained unknown.
Priority could be given to achieving consistency between the lists of both parties. Each name on the Lebanese list should receive a response: detained, released, deceased, unknown to the Israeli authorities or in another situation. Persons recognized as detained should then be located.
The case before the Human Rights Council
At the same time, the Lebanese government decided to further internationalize the issue.
Minister of Health Rakan Nassereddine raised the issue at a meeting of the Council of Ministers. The government then instructed Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri to continue the process with the Lebanese representative in Geneva to bring the matter before the UN Human Rights Council.
This initiative comes after consideration of a report by the National Human Rights Commission.
The passage through Geneva can serve several purposes. The first is to formally document cases. The second is to increase the pressure to obtain access to prisoners. The third is to put their situation in an international framework beyond bilateral negotiations alone.
However, this does not guarantee the release of prisoners. It can, however, contribute to international documentation and information on their situation.
The central role of the International Committee of the Red Cross
In this case, the International Committee of the Red Cross occupies a particular position. He has already played a role in the transfer of released prisoners to Lebanon. However, its effectiveness depends on the access granted to persons still detained.
An independent visit would verify the detainee’s identity, state of health and conditions of detention. It would also provide information to families.
However, the information available clearly indicates that such access is insufficient.
The problem becomes even more important when certain detentions are not officially recognized. Without confirmation, a family can ignore for months if their loved one is a prisoner or disappeared.
Lebanon could therefore make access by the International Committee of the Red Cross a separate request from that of liberation. Even where there is disagreement about the status of a detainee, his or her existence and place of detention should be established.
Testimony of the released as a new source of information
Former detainees are now an essential source for filling gaps.
Their stories can identify people unknown to the official lists. They can also confirm that people already identified are still alive. Finally, they may provide information on transfers between different places of detention.
A systematic protocol could be established at each release. After the necessary medical examinations, a detailed interview would collect names, nicknames, physical descriptions, approximate dates of meetings and places of detention.
This information could then be confronted with the files of the families of missing persons.
The recent discovery of a Lebanese missing since 2024 and now identified as a detainee shows the usefulness of this method. It also shows that the current figure can still evolve.
Behind the number of 39, the question of the missing
The main problem may therefore not be the number of prisoners already identified. It concerns those who are not.
A missing person may be in several situations. He may be detained without his name being communicated. He may have been killed without his body being identified or returned. It may also have disappeared in the displacements caused by the fighting.
For each family, this lack of response prolongs uncertainty.
The discovery of a single prisoner previously classified as missing is sufficient to show that both categories cannot be separated. The search for prisoners must therefore systematically include the missing.
The real challenge of the forthcoming negotiations is therefore not only to secure the release of the 39 people currently identified. It is necessary to establishhow many Lebanese are actually detained in Israel and how many remain missing without their fate being known.
Until a cross-referenced list of Lebanese authorities, families, former prisoners, humanitarian organizations and the Israeli side is established, the official figure will remain provisional. The September releases provided answers to a few families. Above all, they revealed the extent of the information still lacking.
