ety at [[bezwaar]]
Fragment of a discussion from User talk:Rua
Perhaps it could just be indicated as being prefixed with ge-, which already has an entry for this formation. A usage note should be added that the prefix is dropped when the verb already has one.
On the other hand, could it be analogous to e.g. bedrog ~ bedriegen, but without an ablaut available (due to it being a late formation)? Bezwaar doesn't seem to have ever denoted a concrete activity, unlike the verbal nouns on ge-.