🚨 Loading... Read More

How Lebanon's leaders are enabling Israel's war on their own country

Political Leaning Analysis
Left Center Right
Score: -0.21Center / Neutral




How Lebanon's leaders are enabling Israel's war on their own country





Submitted by
Amal Saad
on
Fri, 05/01/2026 - 14:53






By adopting a US State Department memo and entering asymmetrical talks, Beirut has enlisted in Israel's counter-resistance project and ethnic cleansing of the south


Mourners cry over a coffin during the funeral of three Lebanese Civil Defense members who were killed in an Israeli air strike, in the southern city of Tyre on 30 April 2026 (AFP)
On
That Joseph Aoun is now widely nicknamed in Lebanon "the president of others on our land" - a reappropriation of his own description of resistance to Israel's aggression since the November 2024 ceasefire as "the war of others on our land" - is a measure of how thoroughly he has been delegitimised in the eyes of a significant portion of the public.

This delegitimisation is not confined to the head of state. It also extends to the executive authority now shared by Aoun and the government headed by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, which, in trying to conflate itself with the full authority of the Lebanese state, has launched an unprecedented campaign not merely to ban armed resistance, but to portray it as alien to Lebanese social and political life.

In so doing, it has effectively disinherited the legacy of resistance and liberation struggle, disowning an inextricable part of Lebanon's "mosaic" political identity.

What the past month has confirmed is the full entrenchment of a political project whose direction had been clear since August 2025, when the cabinet ordered the army to disarm Hezbollah and destroy its seized weapons - its ultimate objective being to demilitarise Lebanon itself in order to appease Israel.

That objective was given more explicit coercive form on 2 March, when, just hours after Israel responded to Hezbollah's resumption of resistance activity following 15 months of restraint in the face of continued Israeli aggression, the government criminalised its military and security operations.

By 8 April, the same appeasement project had acquired its clearest institutional expression when Salam insisted on severing the country from Iran, which had been prioritising Lebanon's inclusion in the ceasefire as one of its non-negotiable red lines in its talks with Washington.

Having stripped Lebanon of that protective diplomatic cover, Lebanese officials rushed headlong into unshielded and profoundly asymmetrical negotiations with Israel, and did so in the immediate aftermath of Israel's mass slaughter of civilians across the country.

Salam went further still in a cabinet session the following day, reportedly rationalising Israel's massacres as targeted strikes on Hezbollah fighters and weapons depots rather than civilians and humanitarian aid, while requesting that weapons in Beirut be "restricted to the legitimate forces alone". 

In one fell swoop, the Lebanese government managed to convert Israel's justification for the atrocities into a security directive of its own.

No illusions

On 14 April, the Lebanese government met with the Israeli ambassador in Washington - and again on 23 April - even as Israel announced its intent to establish a "security zone" in the form of a Gaza-style "Yellow Line" in south Lebanon, barring return to 55 villages and towns and transforming roughly six percent of Lebanese territory into a depopulated military zone.

In Gaza, as in Lebanon, the "Yellow Line" was first presented as a temporary withdrawal boundary under the US-led ceasefire arrangement but has since been expanded by Israeli forces into a permanent occupation encompassing more than half of Gaza's territory. Now extended further to an "orange line" placing nearly two-thirds of Gaza under Israeli control, its Lebanese iteration was similarly designed to convert a supposedly provisional security line into a de facto demarcation of permanent occupation.

This conversion was to be produced through demolition, displacement and the systematic destruction of the frontline villages in its path.

The April 2026 memo imposes nothing on Israel whatsoever: no withdrawal obligation, no accountability for its continuing occupation and daily violations

The perversity of the arrangement lay in a government that had made the cessation of hostilities its condition for negotiations, only to sit across from an interlocutor using the negotiating period itself to complete the ethnic cleansing and territorial remaking required for its "security" framework.

By attending these lopsided talks without bargaining chips to offer, or genuine conditions to impose, and after decoupling Lebanon from Iran's vastly stronger bargaining position, the Aoun-Salam government made clear that it was not negotiating over the south so much as placing it on the table.

It treated the nation's capital of anti-colonial resistance as a burden to be amputated from Lebanon and its people as an expendable community that Israel could kill and ethnically cleanse at will.

Given the nature of the supposed enemy it was "negotiating" with, the government was under no illusions. It was fully aware that Israel has no withdrawal or compromise horizon, only a post-2023 logic of obliterative force displayed across Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.

It is a doctrine that corresponds to what anti-imperialist political economist Bikrum Gill calls an "unfolding dialectic" in which "the colonial equation seeks to constantly renew itself by imposing an even greater force with the aim of achieving a permanent repression of the anti-colonial negation".

Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of Israel's genocide in Gaza

That same colonial doctrine is what the US State Department's 16 April memo, officially adopted by the Lebanese government as its own position, proceeded to formalise and legitimise, granting Israel the freedom to continue its campaign of killing and ethnic cleansing in south Lebanon.

The memo achieves this through a structure of radical asymmetry, preserving Israel's "inherent right of self-defence" and operationalising it through language that authorises strikes "at any time" against "planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks".

Given Israel's well-documented record of war crimes and genocide, such a formulation effectively authorises the targeting of civilians, villages, infrastructure, and any form of social life it chooses to construe as a threat.

A licence to kill

Netanyahu's assertion on 26 April that Israel's freedom of action to strike Lebanon forms part of its agreement with the Lebanese state confirms that the memo was received in Tel Aviv exactly as it was written - as a licence to kill.

In contrast, Lebanon enjoys no reciprocal right to self-defence whatsoever.

The memo even concedes that "the two countries are not at war" - despite Israeli attacks having killed over 2,500 people, wounded more than 8,000 and displaced over 1.2 million, destroying or heavily damaging more than 50,000 housing units between 2 March and 22 April alone, all in flagrant disregard of Israel's ongoing invasion and occupation of south Lebanon.

This already renders the document more humiliating than the infamous 17 May 1983 agreement - since rescinded - which, for all its capitulatory and treasonous character, at least paid nominal tribute to the idea of Lebanese security as a formally reciprocal right and paid lip service to the principle of an Israeli withdrawal.

Why Israel cannot defeat Hezbollah
Read More »

But the April 2026 memo imposes nothing on Israel whatsoever: no withdrawal obligation, no accountability for its continuing occupation and daily violations, even after the ceasefire it had signed, and no reckoning with the destruction already inflicted.

At the same time, it entirely conditions Lebanon's path towards an end to the violence on the disarmament and dismantlement of the resistance.

Hezbollah and other so-called "rogue" armed groups are therefore not treated as one issue among others, but as the governing purpose of the entire arrangement. In reality, what is being pursued is not peace, or even a ceasefire in any conventional sense, but a counter-resistance security framework through which the Lebanese state lends its sovereignty to the continuation of Israel's colonial war on Lebanese territory.

The clearest demonstration of this is Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent statement that the US is working to establish a system where "vetted units within the Lebanese Armed Forces have the training, the equipment, and the capability to go after elements of Hezbollah and dismantle them so Israel doesn't have to do it".

In other words, the subcontracting of Israel's counter-resistance project to the Lebanese state is the only deliverable this government has to offer - civil strife engineered to accomplish through internal Lebanese violence what Israeli bombardment could not achieve from without.

Army commander Rodolphe Haykal's refusal to be conscripted into this role, and the widely expected imposition of his replacement on the government, speaks to both the limits of what the Lebanese state can actually deliver and the extent to which even its residual internal sovereignty - the much-vaunted "monopoly on force" it has been ardently pursuing - is being stage-managed from Washington.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Israel's war on Lebanon
Opinion

Post Date Override
0


Update Date
Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29



Update Date Override
0




Story Timeline

Wed 23:08 - ANSA Main
Lillo in Sanremo
Sat 01:19 - ANSA Main
Sanremo 2026, the evening of covers
Mon 02:00 - La Repubblica (IT)
Sal Da Vinci's popular miracle
Wed 16:41 - The Telegraph
Water wars: the final escalation?
Thu 01:18 - Middle East Eye
Trump vows to bring Iran back to 'Stone Ages'
Thu 03:01 - Al-Monitor
Takeaways from Trump's speech on Iran
Sun 05:07 - Al Jazeera English
Trump’s unpopular war on Iran
Mon 16:39 - The Hill
Trump’s Iran ultimatum nears
Mon 21:45 - The Hill
Trump's looming deadline for Iran
Wed 12:00 - UN News All
Hundreds feared dead in Lebanon strikes
Wed 15:01 - Al Jazeera English
Israel strikes central Beirut without warning
Wed 21:59 - Al Jazeera English
Americans question Trump’s instinct on Iran war
Thu 00:55 - Middle East Eye
Syria condemns Israeli assault on Lebanon
Thu 05:19 - Middle East Eye
Israel renews attacks on southern Lebanon
Thu 12:59 - Middle East Eye
Lebanon calls for direct talks with Israel
Fri 11:00 - Al-Monitor
Giving birth in a shelter in Israel
Tue 11:48 - Al Jazeera English
Who controls the Strait of Hormuz?
Tue 15:45 - Aftenposten (NO)
Trump opens for early talks with Iran
Tue 15:54 - Financial Times
Trump says Meloni lacks courage
Tue 17:58 - Tagesschau
Trump calls Meloni "unacceptable"
Tue 22:57 - National Review
Trump vs. the Pope
Wed 03:40 - TVN24 (PL)
Trump 'shocked' by Meloni's behavior
Wed 13:32 - Washington Examiner
Trump says China agreed not to send weapons to Iran
Sat 10:48 - Al Jazeera English
Hormuz: Spin in the Strait
Sat 10:48 - Al Jazeera
Hormuz: Spin in the Strait
Sat 11:55 - Al Jazeera English
Gunfire reported by vessel in Strait of Hormuz
Mon 15:41 - Washington Examiner
Trump denies Israel pushed US into war with Iran
Tue 04:47 - Middle East Eye
Trump attacks US media over Iran war coverage
Fri 13:03 - Al Jazeera English
Negotiations that enable Israel’s land-grabs

Different Perspectives

ANSA Main
54 articles
ANSA Mondo
11 articles
ANSA Politica
7 articles
ANSA Top News
18 articles
Aftenposten (NO)
5 articles
Al Jazeera
3 articles
Al Jazeera English
122 articles
Al-Monitor
154 articles
BBC Europe
2 articles
BBC Headlines
23 articles
BBC Politics
4 articles
DN (SE)
4 articles
DW
2 articles
DW All
28 articles
DW Top
28 articles
DW World
6 articles
Der Spiegel
3 articles
Die Welt
10 articles
Die Zeit Newsfeed
1 article
El Mundo (ES)
4 articles
El Pais
5 articles
Euronews
60 articles
Financial Times
3 articles
Fox News
49 articles
France 24
68 articles
Gazeta Wyborcza (PL)
1 article
HLN (BE)
4 articles
Handelsblatt Politik
4 articles
La Libre (BE)
2 articles
La Repubblica (IT)
85 articles
Le Figaro
3 articles
Le Monde
1 article
Middle East Eye
212 articles
NPR
10 articles
NRK (NO)
3 articles
NYT Europe
2 articles
National Review
1 article
PBS Newshour
14 articles
Politico EU
18 articles
Rzeczpospolita (PL)
1 article
SRF International
1 article
SVT Nyheter (SE)
3 articles
Sky News (UK)
5 articles
SvD (SE)
1 article
Süddeutsche Zeitung Politik
2 articles
TVN24 (PL)
1 article
Tagesschau
6 articles
The Bulletin (BE)
1 article
The Guardian
12 articles
The Hill
79 articles
The Telegraph
2 articles
UN News All
9 articles
UN News Global
4 articles
UN News Middle East
3 articles
Washington Examiner
53 articles
Washington Post
13 articles
n-tv Politik
3 articles