Israeli shelling once again disturbs what little peace remains for already-anxious southerners, targeting sites said to belong to Hezbollah. Repeated Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement, declared six months ago, have become so routine that the toll of casualties and destruction is now reduced to meaningless numbers, figures that Israel disregards as it continues to discipline states, groups, and individuals alike, from Gaza to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
At the same time, some video footage emerging from the targeted areas in South Lebanon cannot be ignored. Specifically, those clips that document explosions appearing to involve weapons or ammunition going off due to Israeli strikes, stored in what seem to be either old or newly established depots, though no one officially discloses what exactly is being seen flying and exploding.
Hezbollah merely holds Israel responsible, while the Lebanese state responds with denial and silence. Meanwhile, public opinion in Lebanon is torn by a flood of interpretations, only deepening its divisions over the issue of arms.
There is no doubt that Israel is an aggressor state that openly violates international law, but it is also a system highly skilled at exploiting a distorted reality and exposing its weakest points.
This dilemma, seemingly impossible to solve at its root, reveals a dual fragility: The fragility of Lebanese sovereignty in the face of continuous Israeli aggression, and the fragility of the Lebanese state in confronting Hezbollah’s weapons, which remain beyond any real accountability beyond rhetorical statements.
The New Government… A Continuation of Complacency
Many had hoped that the election of Joseph Aoun as Lebanon’s new president, and the appointment of Nawaf Salam to form a government, would open a window toward redefining the state’s role. But so far, there are no signs of a serious plan to address the central issue at the heart of Lebanon’s collapse: Hezbollah’s arsenal.
Despite the government’s progressive rhetoric in several respects, and the domestic and international hopes pinned on it, the new leadership appears hesitant, even complicit in its silence, when it comes to tackling this fundamental security issue.
While the president and the government proclaim that no weapons should exist outside the authority of the state, no one has proposed a realistic path toward unifying decisions of war and peace.
No one addresses the Lebanese people, or the international community, with a clear, time-bound, and detailed vision.
It is as if the only goal is to manage the crisis, not resolve it, despite all evidence proving that crisis management does not prevent disaster; it merely postpones it, at a higher cost.
The recurring question remains: How can a state ask the world to protect it while it is incapable of controlling weapons stored in the heart of its villages and cities, arms used in regional wars that bypass its institutions entirely?
How can Lebanon rebuild what has been destroyed, economically and in terms of infrastructure, without proving to the world that it alone controls legitimate tools of power?
International support, whether for reconstruction in the South or for rescuing Lebanon from financial collapse, will not come as long as Hezbollah’s weapons remain outside any legal national framework.
This is not merely a foreign demand cemented by the harsh equation of Hezbollah and Lebanon’s recent defeat, it is also a political and economic logic.
Who would invest in, or provide aid to, a country that cannot guarantee its own security or sovereignty?
If the Lebanese state, through its newly elected leadership and institutions, fails to lay out a serious roadmap for addressing the weapons issue, then Israel, with clear American backing, will do so on its behalf, using devastating military force.
After the recent war, which resulted in widespread destruction and heavy human and material losses, Hezbollah emerged not with a stronger negotiating position, but rather more isolated, both locally and regionally, and with far less credibility in defending its narrative.
What we are living through today is not merely a crisis of weapons or foreign aggression. It is a crisis of vision for Lebanon: Who governs it? Who protects it? And who speaks in its name?
Continued evasion of these questions will only lead to more ruin.
The new government now faces a defining test: Either it begins to truly reclaim the state’s role, through a clear discourse and responsible action on the weapons issue, or it will solidify Lebanon’s position as a violated land caught between two armed powers, with no real sovereignty and no viable future.
