The Guardian view on Lebanon’s suffering: the ‘ceasefire’ didn’t stop Israeli attacks. Now they’re intensifying again | Editorial

Lebanon was an afterthought when Israel and the US were bombing Iran, and remained one when they stopped. It still appears to be one even as Washington and Tehran speak of peace. The US has suggested that a deal is within reach, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said on Wednesday that a return to war was unlikely, though profound differences remain evident. Tehran says that Lebanon must be part of any agreement.

Yet this week, Lebanon’s supposed ceasefire looks more threadbare than ever, with Israel intensifying its offensive as Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to “crush” Hezbollah. Israeli strikes killed 31 people on Tuesday alone, and on Wednesday the military ordered the evacuation of the entire city of Tyre. Its troops have pushed out of the buffer zone that it established in the south, which far-right ministers want to annex. Israel may be intensifying attacks before the US reins it in, or in the hope of destabilising the talks. War allows Mr Netanyahu to dodge accountability at home. Domestic demands for continued attacks on Hezbollah are also growing, given the mounting threat from its drones to soldiers in Lebanon and residents of Israel’s north.

Israel has killed thousands in this war, including civilians and scores of medics, as well as striking bridges, essential water infrastructure and homes. An estimated 1.2 million have fled. Bellingcat reported recently that at least 46 of the 54 villages within the Israeli “yellow line” have been either demolished or heavily damaged using the same tactics seen in Gaza. Many displaced people have no homes to return to.

These developments appear largely unremarked by the world. The global repercussions of Iran’s war have commanded diplomatic and economic attention. Perhaps the annihilation in Gaza – where killings continue despite another purported ceasefire – and brutal conflicts worldwide have made flouting the laws of war seem almost commonplace. But there is nothing normal about this destruction.

Under US pressure, Lebanon is now in direct negotiations with Israel. Hezbollah has undermined the Lebanese state over decades. But while many in Lebanon are furious with Hezbollah for triggering Israel’s offensive, others see a group birthed by Israeli occupation as offering defence or deterrence that the state cannot. This is not just about its military capacity. A new Lebanon, with a disarmed Hezbollah, would require Shia communities to believe that they will be protected and represented.

Instead, political rhetoric is sharpening. In part, the president, Joseph Aoun, the prime minister, Nawaf Salam, and Hezbollah-aligned politicians are playing to their bases. But there are also signs of broader divisions, including people avoiding Shia communities seen as targets for Israeli strikes. In a fractured country scarred by years of war, economic and political turmoil, and the devastating Beirut port explosion in 2020, and with the population again competing for meagre resources, the risks of greater rifts and even the spectre of civil war loom large.

As Sami Halabi, the director of policy at the Lebanese thinktank the Alternative Policy Institute (Badil) observed recently, the country cannot be bombed into sovereignty. “Washington says it wants a stronger Lebanese state and a weaker Hezbollah,” he wrote. “But its actions increasingly suggest something else: not the construction of sovereignty, but the management of fracture under Israeli military primacy.” A better Lebanon is possible, but it can’t be born this way.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.