Hezbollah Has Recovered, but Lebanon Is Ailing
• Those who had hoped to see Hezbollah buried alongside its Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Sayyed Hashem Safieddine – believing that the funeral would reveal a mass abandonment of the resistance – were dealt a cold shock and left disappointed. Instead, Hezbollah emerged, shielded by a million-strong base and bolstered by unwavering support from other sectarian communities, even if they were minorities. This support extended beyond Lebanon, encompassing both elite and grassroots backing from Arab and international circles, including governments and peoples alike. Moreover, Hezbollah demonstrated an exceptionally efficient organisational, security, media, and diplomatic apparatus, capable of managing such a complex event with remarkable success, leaving even its most rational adversaries, especially abroad, in stunned disbelief.
• In the political arena, Hezbollah dismantled the pretexts of its opponents, frustrating those who had hoped not only to witness the party's decline but also to hear reckless rhetoric, both regionally provocative and internally inflammatory, that would set unattainable expectations beyond the party's capacity to fulfill or bear responsibility for their consequences. Instead, Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem reaffirmed Hezbollah's position as the strongest political force in Lebanon, firmly believing in Lebanon's permanent status as an inclusive homeland for all its citizens, upholding the Taif Agreement, and recognising the state as the unifying framework for all Lebanese. He stated that the responsibility for ending the occupation and repelling aggression lies with the state, while Hezbollah remains committed to the internal agreement designating the defense strategy as a subject of national dialogue – one that specifically addresses the role of the resistance's weapons in defending Lebanon.
• Hezbollah's adversaries will find no grounds to blame the party for the continuation of Israeli aggression or for any supposed violation of Lebanon's commitments under the ceasefire agreement. This is especially true given that both the Lebanese Army and the Lebanese government have affirmed that Lebanon has fulfilled its obligations regarding Hezbollah's withdrawal from south of the Litani River. Consequently, based on statements from Lebanon's top three leaders and UNIFIL reports, Israel's continued occupation of the five hills and the Lebanese section of Ghajar – territories within the Blue Line – remains a blatant violation of Resolution 1701. It is the state's responsibility to end this occupation.
• Hezbollah has recovered, but Lebanon is ailing. The issue is not Hezbollah's stance but rather Lebanon's position within the framework of U.S.-Israeli relations. Even Hezbollah's fiercest opponents understand, though they refuse to acknowledge that Washington grants Tel Aviv free rein in Lebanon, just as it does in Syria. This remains the case despite all the concessions made by Syria's new leadership to accommodate Israeli security interests, whether by dismantling the army that Israel has wanted to destroy, and did so in full-view of the new leadership,
expelling Iran and Hezbollah from Syria, and severing Hezbollah's supply lines. These had been Israeli objectives for years, yet they were only realised under Syria's new leadership. Still, this did not shield Syria from Israeli aggression, which persists unabated from entrenching the occupation of the Golan to daily incursions into Syrian territory, culminating in open declarations of intent to sow sectarian discord in southern Syria. The fundamental question remains: What if Hezbollah's current diplomatic efforts, for which it has set no immediate deadline, ultimately bear no fruit?
• Lebanon is ailing because neither Hezbollah's opponents nor, perhaps, anyone within the state is preparing for the possibility that diplomacy is doomed to fail. The priority for many in Lebanon's political class is not the liberation of occupied land or the cessation of aggression but rather the weakening of Hezbollah and securing favour with Washington – an equation that dictates internal political standing. After all, those blessed with American support find security in their political survival, provided they refrain from acknowledging that U.S. commitments to Israel always take precedence over any consideration for Lebanon's legitimate demands.
• Lebanon will begin to heal when a national consensus emerges that the time has come for the Lebanese Army to acquire an air defense system, not to build an army capable of confronting Israel or equipping it to deter aggression and reclaim occupied land, as such goals are often dismissed as unrealistic and manipulable, but simply to establish an air defense network. Achieving this requires only a Cabinet decision, one that would set diplomacy into motion and force Israel to weigh the strategic costs of its continued occupation against Lebanon's acquisition of a system that would curb Israeli aerial dominance, both operationally and in intelligence gathering, over Lebanese airspace.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
LBCI
9 hours ago
- LBCI
As threats grow on border, Israel questions value of UN peacekeepers in Lebanon
Report by Amal Shehadeh, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian Israeli officials have described the international forces operating in southern Lebanon as ineffective, as the Israeli lobby, in coordination with Washington, pushes within the United Nations not to renew the mandate of these forces, according to security officials. According to a security report, Israel's view of the international forces has shifted. It no longer believes their presence in southern Lebanon is preferable to their absence, especially since, in Israel's view, these forces have failed to deter Hezbollah's strength. Reports also note that indirect coordination — conducted through countries allied with Tel Aviv — with the army has proven effective. The actions of the Lebanese army on the ground have become more significant than what the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) can deliver. Israeli officials concluded in internal discussions and security assessments that the combination of security concerns and political interests now leans toward joining the U.S. position, which opposes renewing the mandate — or at least calls for expanding UNIFIL's powers. More importantly, according to a senior security official, current deliberations are focusing on how to restore full freedom of action for Israel to protect its northern border. The official warned that even if UNIFIL's mission is terminated, Israel will not abandon the northern front, and the Israeli military is prepared for any scenario. Through indirect cooperation with the Lebanese army and with intelligence and technological capabilities, Israel will be able to effectively respond to growing threats along the border. This evolving Israeli stance toward both UNIFIL and the Lebanese army raises questions about the credibility of Israel's earlier claims that the Lebanese army was incapable of fulfilling its duties — a position that now appears inconsistent unless Tel Aviv seeks to drive a wedge between the army and Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon.
LBCI
9 hours ago
- LBCI
UNIFIL faces local pushback in Lebanon's south amid Israeli calls to end mission — what's next for the force?
Report by Edmond Sassine, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian Amid Israeli calls to oppose the renewal of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon's (UNIFIL) mandate in the country's south and end its mission in August, a series of incidents and protests has emerged in southern villages. Local residents have objected to UNIFIL patrols operating in their neighborhoods and on their land without accompaniment by the Lebanese army. Why, then, is UNIFIL conducting patrols and missions without the army? Or, put differently: If the presence of the army helps ease tensions between UNIFIL and the Hezbollah-supportive population, why isn't the army always present? According to Lebanese sources, UNIFIL carries out daily joint operations with the army but also conducts separate patrols and missions on its own. The limited number of army personnel in the south does not allow for the accompaniment of all UNIFIL patrols, and Resolution 1701 grants the U.N. peacekeeping force the right to move independently. Most UNIFIL patrols, whether or not accompanied by the army, do not result in incidents. The sources add that local objections often stem from specific actions UNIFIL carries out — such as entering private property or filming homes — actions that typically do not occur when the army is present. Trust between the local population and UNIFIL remains low, especially as it frequently conducts operations near Hezbollah-affiliated villages and facilities and sometimes brings media crews along. Meanwhile, it is seen as doing little in practice to confront Israeli violations or enforce the ceasefire. The recurrence of incidents involving specific units has led some Lebanese observers to suggest that there may be an internal push within UNIFIL to assert its role and presence, even in the face of local objections. This could serve to build momentum for modifying the mission ahead of its renewal in two months, aligning with Israeli efforts to end or alter the current UNIFIL mandate. According to the same sources, the current Israeli pressure to terminate the mission resembles the kinds of pressure applied in past years as the renewal deadline approached each August. This time, it is being framed as part of a broader push on Lebanon and Hezbollah to accept a change in UNIFIL's role — particularly in light of the new reality following the war, the losses Hezbollah has sustained, its military pullback from south of the Litani River, and the dismantling of its infrastructure in the area. While several sources confirm that Hezbollah has not decided to escalate or intentionally provoke recent incidents with UNIFIL, the group insists that UNIFIL's activities must be carried out in coordination with the Lebanese army.
LBCI
9 hours ago
- LBCI
With no progress on reconstruction, Lebanon bets on donors to unlock funding
Report by Bassam Abou Zeid, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian Since the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, no meaningful progress has been made on reconstruction. Lebanon had been awaiting the World Bank's approval of a $250 million loan on June 12, but reports now suggest the discussion of the loan may be postponed indefinitely. If the delay carries a message, it is a familiar one: no funds will be released without Lebanon fulfilling its promises. Still, the government remains determined to secure the funding needed for reconstruction, which is expected to come from donor countries and international agencies. The prime minister's office has scheduled a donor conference for Tuesday at the Grand Serail to announce that the first step in the process will be the $250 million loan. The loan is earmarked for debris removal and road and infrastructure repairs, mostly in densely populated areas—not in the heavily damaged front-line villages of southern Lebanon. According to government sources, Lebanon plans to ask donors to help increase the loan amount—first to $450 million, and eventually to $1 billion. The government also intends to present an outline of the overall reconstruction plan. The prime minister's office is banking on some positive developments, including key appointments at the Council for Development and Reconstruction, which will oversee the execution of the projects. Government sources have described the conference as exploratory, aiming to gauge the intentions of donor countries, particularly Gulf states and Arab funds. However, the most that can be expected, according to the sources, are promises of funding contingent on the continued implementation of reforms and concrete steps to ensure stability in Lebanon—especially the disarmament of Hezbollah.
