TEHRAN – Lebanon’s fragile ceasefire with Israel, brokered in late November 2024 by the United States and France, was meant to halt hostilities and open the door to a negotiated settlement. Yet more than a year later, the truce has proven largely illusory. Israel continues near-daily strikes on Lebanese territory, claiming to target Hezbollah compounds and rocket launch sites, but offering no verifiable evidence to substantiate its assertions.
The imbalance is stark. While Lebanon has sought to uphold its commitments under the ceasefire, Israel has not withdrawn from southern Lebanon as stipulated in the agreement. Instead, it has escalated operations, most notably with the recent assassination of senior Hezbollah commander Haytham Ali Tabatabai in Beirut’s southern suburbs.
Futile negotiations
On December 3, Lebanese and Israeli representatives held their first direct talks in decades at UNIFIL headquarters in Naqoura. The meeting, attended by senior officials from both sides and mediated by the United States, was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough. Yet the talks failed to stem Israeli attacks.
President Joseph Aoun has emphasized Lebanon’s commitment to negotiations to stop Israeli strikes, while Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has insisted that the ceasefire must apply equally to both sides. Salam has criticized the disproportionate focus on Hezbollah’s obligations, noting that Israel’s violations have gone largely unchallenged.
The humanitarian toll underscores the futility of these efforts. According to UN and Lebanese health ministry figures, more than 330 Lebanese people have been killed since the ceasefire began. On aggregate, some 4,000 people in Lebanon have lost their lives in Israeli attacks over the past two years.
A diplomatic misstep
Against this backdrop, Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi’s recent comments have drawn sharp criticism. Speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday, Raggi warned of a possible large-scale Israeli operation against Lebanon and stressed that the government was engaged in diplomatic efforts to prevent escalation. Yet, instead of centering his remarks on Israel’s ongoing violations of the ceasefire, Raggi chose to describe Iran’s role in the region as “very negative,” accusing Tehran of destabilizing Lebanon and the wider Middle East. He went further, labeling Hezbollah “an illegal organization.”
Such remarks, while perhaps intended to reassure international partners, risk misdirecting Lebanon’s diplomatic energy at a critical moment. By shifting blame toward Hezbollah and Iran, Raggi diverts attention from Israel’s clear and documented violations of the ceasefire.
Raggi’s stance is particularly troubling and merits closer scrutiny, given its contrast with the positions of Lebanon’s own leadership.
Misplaced blame: Lebanon continues to endure relentless Israeli bombardment, with civilian populations bearing the brunt of the attacks. By focusing criticism on Iran and Hezbollah while overlooking Israel’s ongoing violations, the true scale and nature of the aggression on the ground is obscured. President Aoun has consistently emphasized that Lebanon’s chosen course remains steadfast negotiations, aimed at halting the Israeli attacks and protecting the sovereignty and safety of the nation.
Weakening negotiations: The ceasefire was designed to be reciprocal. Prime Minister Salam has rightly pointed out that political debate has unfairly focused on Hezbollah’s commitments while ignoring Israel’s violations. Raggi’s remarks reinforce this imbalance, undermining Lebanon’s leverage in talks.
Undermining unity: Hezbollah’s arsenal, while politically debated, is tied to Lebanon’s defense posture against Israeli attacks. Dismissing it outright risks alienating large segments of Lebanese society and weakening national cohesion.
Diplomatic imbalance: Lebanon’s credibility depends on consistency. Criticizing Iran while remaining muted on Israel’s violations creates the impression of bias and may embolden further aggression.
Israel’s expansionist agenda
Israel’s continued aggression cannot be understood in isolation. It aligns with the long-standing ideological project of “Greater Israel”, a vision rooted in biblical references and embraced by ultra nationalist movements. This concept has been invoked to justify territorial expansion beyond Israel’s internationally recognized borders, encompassing not only Palestine but also parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.
Recent statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who openly identified with the vision of Greater Israel in 2025, have reinforced fears that Israel’s military operations are part of a broader expansionist plan. Arab states have condemned these remarks as a direct threat to regional sovereignty and stability.
Seen in this light, Israel’s refusal to abide by the ceasefire and its continued strikes on Lebanon are not merely tactical violations but part of a larger strategy to weaken Lebanon militarily and politically, paving the way for territorial ambitions consistent with the Greater Israel project.
Lebanon’s leadership must ensure its diplomatic voice reflects the lived reality of its people: a nation suffering under sustained Israeli bombardment despite its efforts to pursue peace. At this critical juncture, the priority must remain clear—holding Israel accountable for violating the ceasefire and resisting its expansionist designs under the banner of “Greater Israel”. Any diplomatic strategy that fails to center this reality is not only unjust but strategically dangerous for Lebanon and the wider region.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
