Lebanon has seen, since September of last year, a war that devastated the South more than any other in recent memory. A new generation of Lebanese, who had not yet tasted the bitterness of war, displacement, and injustice, was, with great generosity (and cruel irony), offered those very same flavors their parents and grandparents had known all too well. According to the International Organization for Migration, over 875,180 Lebanese were internally displaced by November 7, 2024. The ceasefire, which was signed by both parties and took effect on November 27, 2024, did not bring the relative calm some southerners had hoped for. Indeed, as of June 10, 2025, Lebanese authorities would record well over 3500 violations of the ceasefire from the Israeli side. Neither Lebanon nor Hezbollah had breached the truce during that period of time, not once. More so than that, the Israeli army would go on to occupy five locations spread across Southern Lebanon, “to defend Israeli citizens”, as directly quoted by Nadav Shoshani, the military spokesperson of the Israeli army. A report done by Amnesty International, published on 25 August 2025, highlights the number of structures destroyed by the Israeli army, well over 10,000 until 26 January 2025, and a good portion of those numbers being attributed to the post-ceasefire period.

There are, in truth, hundreds, even thousands, of violations, all of which could be listed here. Hundreds of civilian deaths, countless destroyed infrastructures, while trying to rebuild an already decimated South. And let's be clear about one thing: no story outweighs another. Each holds its own measure of loss and significance. But, allow me to digress. Rather than dwell on the endless record of damage, perhaps it would be better to turn our attention to a specific, central actor. An actor who, in the face of these events and the displacement of thousands of Southerners, is expected to act, before its people, to protect, to preserve its dignity, one would hope, and above all, to respond.

The new Lebanese state, that is, the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President of the Republic Joseph Aoun, was, quite frankly, pushed (if not outright forced) by global and regional actors alike. This came as no surprise to anyone. In fact, anyone claiming otherwise would have been living in denial, for U.S. and Saudi officials openly pressured the Lebanese to elect Joseph Aoun. One recalls then-U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein's message to Lebanese parliament members in Beirut, declaring that Joseph Aoun "is the man of the moment", and how he possesses the "sovereign and reformist qualities". And then, a warning, perhaps even, a threat? Who's to say: "The rebels will pay the price for their positions, and Lebanon will not receive any international aid."

And so, thanks to the United States, Saudi Arabia, France, and a host of other global and regional actors, who, of course, have Lebanon's best interests at heart, the country, after two years without a president, finally elected one. Soon after, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam was chosen, his government secured, and all appeared well. Well, maybe not for the Lebanese, but certainly for someone else!
Previously, the paper argued that, above all, the Lebanese government must respond. Respond to the daily breaches of its sovereignty, respond to the daily aggressions on its infrastructure, and respond to the daily killings of its citizens. One would expect that the Foreign Minister, Youssef Rajji, to fulfill his duty by issuing statements whenever airstrikes hit the south or whenever citizens are martyred. Actually, what does the Foreign Minister have to say? "Every day there is an attack. Every day we have to issue a statement?". So, following the Foreign Minister's train of logic, the Lebanese State does not need to issue daily statements, implying that even the most basic domestic reassurance is unnecessary. something that should be expected, as a bare minimum, especially for civilians in the South who, with time, feel abandoned by their own government in the face of relentless strikes and violations.
Let's also be a little realistic: Lebanon, in its current state (and arguably since its foundation), is not capable of responding militarily to Israel, which receives billions of dollars worth of arms, equipment, and financing by the United States ($33,77 billion since October 2023 alone!). Lebanon, on the other hand, receives a little less than $230 million now and then, accompanied by outdated weaponry that have no chance to be used in an offensive warfare, let alone a defensive one (the recent shipment of the A-29 Super Tucano aircraft comes to mind). Moreso, our American partners expect Lebanon not to use these weapons against Israel, yes, even in the event of Israel's aggression against the country. And above all that, the U.S.'s insistence on the state to disarm Hezbollah, the resistance movement legally recognized under the Taif agreement, and the same force that has, over time, proven itself as the country's primary line of defense, serves as the final nail in the coffin.

Worst of all, in the author's view, is the bluntness with which these notions are being relayed to us. One could say that at least in the past, such messages were dressed differently, phrased in such a way that it would conceal the "bigger picture" from the audience. It assumed its audience was intelligent enough not to be served the truth straight out of the oven. That no longer seems to be the case. Not since the current U.S. special envoy, Tom Barrack, in an interview with The National News, so candidly laid out Washington's intentions toward Lebanon, its people, army, and, of course, Hezbollah:
"Because who are they going to fight? We don’t want to arm them… so they can fight Israel? I don’t think so," he said, adding, "So you’re arming them (Lebanon) so they can fight their own people, Hezbollah. Hezbollah is our enemy. Iran is our enemy." And who could forget Tom Barrack's address to Lebanese journalists in Aley, where he described their behavior as "animalistic" and asked them "to act civilized"? Of course, nobody in the room dared to respond. The Foreign Minister, of whom we spoke previously, who would never miss the chance to comment on the Iranian minister's every move (and in pure display of professionalism!), had, unfortunately, nothing to comment on that incident. Only after the Syndicate of Lebanese Press Editors threatened to boycott future visits of the envoy did the Presidential Palace come out with a statement, attempting to minimize the damage by claiming Barrack's remarks were "inadvertently made". The same courtesy is rarely extended to representatives of other states, particularly when their actions can hardly be called offensive to anyone involved.

Fair enough, I believe the original message the author was conveying has been delivered. But can it really be that bad? Sure, the silence from the new government regarding the daily attacks, the daily massacres, shows already an irresponsibility from the state on an international level, but more so on the domestic level. Speaking of which, what about the domestic level? Surely it cannot be as bad as what was previously discussed?

A full-blown scandal erupted about a month ago, mere days before marking the first anniversary of former general secretary Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's assassination after 80 bunker-buster JDAMs rained down on Beirut's southern district, Dahyeh, killing him and several other high-profile figures.
It is no secret to anyone in Lebanon how popular Hezbollah is amongst Southerners, nor how revered Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah remains, who is remembered by many, if not most, in the South as the "Master of Martyrs". So, in late September 2025, supporters of Hezbollah and admirers of the Sayyed organized a light projection event at Beirut's iconic Raouche Rock to commemorate the first anniversary of the Sayyed's assassination. Prime Minister Nawaf Sallam, days before the event, had stated that any such light shows over the Raouche Rock would be absolutely prohibited and should not be projected under any circumstances, issuing a directive prohibiting the illumination of national landmarks with political messages. Those involved ignored Nawaf's warnings, citing precedents when the Raouche Rock would be lit with the flags of other countries such as the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia, or when other political factions, including non-Shiite groups, commemorated one of, if not the most controversial figure in modern Lebanese history, Bashir Gemayel, the founder of the Lebanese Forces (The Lebanese Phalange party) just a week earlier, without any response from the state. Gemayel's history is full of controversy; from collaboration with the Israelis, to igniting the civil war in 1975, to genocides against Palestinians and Lebanese alike being carried out in his name... Still, no response or objections from the state to his commemoration. No, on the contrary, they were left in peace to commemorate their fallen leader, while another confession was prohibited from doing the same thing. What gives! Even more striking, Prime Minister Nawaf Sallam went so far as to demand that the army intervene, fully aware of the consequences such action could have on the already fragile state of the civil order. Thankfully, the army understood the stakes and, anticipating the fallout, chose not to act. Backed by Defense Minister Michel Menassa, the latter stated that "the primary national mission of the Lebanese Armed Forces is to prevent unrest, to stop the country from slipping into the abyss of confrontation, to deter those who threaten civil peace, and to reinforce the foundations of national unity."

Imagine being a Lebanese Shiite: your pleas ignored by the government, your southern villages under constant attacks, your friends, families, loved ones killed on a daily basis with no repercussions, the state offering no means of resistance. Your homes are destroyed, and you are forced to move northwards to find shelter (if you can even afford it). Important, nation-changing decisions are being made without your representatives, blatantly violating the constitution and Taqif agreement... And when you attempt to commemorate your leaders peacefully, just as other confessions do, the Prime Minister demands the army intervene, fully aware of the chaos that such action would unleash. What remains but frustration with the government? What remains but distrust in the state's competence? What remains but doubt in whether the state truly puts Lebanon first, or answers instead to the United States, Saudi Arabia, or other regional actors? What remains but anger? What happens when that anger reaches a boiling put? What then? Should I even type out the words?

A few final sentences to conclude this opinion piece. See it as a warning, or perhaps, a few words of caution, from a fellow, concerned Lebanese.

Lebanon, in its modern history, and, if we stretch back to the 19th-century Ottoman period as part of Lebanon, has endured two civil wars: one in 1860, another in 1975. We came dangerously close in 2008, and again in 2021. And especially now, the signs of unrest, frustration, and institutional failure are growing, more so than ever in recent times. There is a responsibility on the state to act in accordance with the constitution, in accordance with the Taif agreement, in accordance with unity among all confessions, and equality under the eyes of the state. Not whatever is happening today. The actions of the government, I repeat, are extremely dangerous. There is no other way to put it. Such systemic failures already encourage other Lebanese to behave towards Southerners and their Shiite counterparts in similarly hostile ways. And this trend is only worsening. What happens when the Shiite community reaches its limit? Do we really want to take the risks and find out?
Let's take some lessons from our neighbours. To the north-east lies a perfect example of a people drained by internal conflict, a nation divided to the point of non-existence - and this is only the beginning for them. Is that the path we want for Lebanon? Its fragmentation? Its balkanization? To the point where the very idea of Lebanon, a country where more than 18 sects can coexist, is threatened, putting the entire existence of the state at risk?