The bombings in areas such as Beit Leif, Qantara, and Touline, combined with operations to level villages, reinforce the image that Israel does not treat Lebanon as a field of limited operations, but as a space to impose military facts on the ground.
Provocative IDF announcement on the ceasefire violation
In a provocative statement, the Israeli army (IDF) reports that it has attacked several areas in southern Lebanon. At the same time, it claims that the responsibility for violating the ceasefire status lies with "terrorists," whose connection to any specific organization is not defined in the announcement.
"Since the ceasefire came into effect (from 00:00 Greek time on April 17), soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces located south of the 'yellow line' in southern Lebanon recorded several incidents in which terrorists violated the ceasefire agreements, approaching from the north of the 'yellow line' toward IDF soldiers and creating an immediate threat," the statement says. The army added that following this and "in order to eliminate the threat, the Israeli Air Force, along with ground forces, launched targeted attacks against terrorists." "Artillery opened fire to support ground forces operating in the area and also struck terrorist infrastructure used to prepare the attacks," the IDF announced.
❌ HEZBOLLAH CEASEFIRE VIOLATION: Since the ceasefire came into effect, IDF soldiers south of the Yellow Line in southern Lebanon identified several incidents in which terrorists violated the ceasefire understandings by approaching from north of the Yellow Line toward IDF…
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) April 18, 2026
Ceasefire without withdrawal from Lebanon is a dead letter
The persistence of Benjamin Netanyahu's government in maintaining troops in southern Lebanon even in the midst of a ceasefire undermines the very definition of de-escalation. A ceasefire without an end to occupation, without the withdrawal of troops, and while strikes and displacements continue, can hardly be considered a peace process. On the contrary, it looks more like a redeployment under fire.
American "mediation" as political cover
The talks hosted in Washington were presented as a "historic opportunity." However, their very structure reveals the core problem. The US appears not as a neutral mediator, but as a political guarantor of Israeli positions.
The rhetoric regarding an "Iranian terrorist enclave" by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reproduces Israeli narratives while silencing the fundamental fact: that Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory and strike Lebanese communities. This does not constitute neutral diplomacy; it constitutes biased crisis management.
The goal of disarming Hezbollah is a strategic fantasy
The Israeli demand for the disarmament of Hezbollah is presented as a prerequisite for stability. In practice, however, it may function as a recipe for perpetuating the war. Hezbollah is not just an armed force; it is a political actor with a social base, parliamentary presence, and deep integration into the Lebanese political system. The idea that it can be "erased" militarily, ignoring this reality, is not a strategic solution. It is a dangerous delusion.
The "export of the Gaza model"
Accusations that Israel is applying the "Gaza model" in Lebanon are gaining more and more weight.
-
Mass destruction of infrastructure
-
Demolition of villages
-
Displacement of civilians
-
Collective punishment If these are consolidated as a doctrine, then we are not talking about a limited military operation. We are talking about the logic of total war.
Iran as a factor of deterrence, not the source of the crisis
The dominant Western narrative attempts to present Iran as the central cause of destabilization. However, this reading ignores that for many in Lebanon and the region, Iran's support for the "resistance" is perceived as an element of deterrence against Israeli military superiority. From this perspective, Iran does not appear as a driving force for escalation, but as a supporter of the balance of power. This explains why efforts to cut off Hezbollah from its regional support meet such great resistance.
Washington invests in the "Abraham Accords," not in peace
The connection of the crisis with the expansion of the Abraham Accords reinforces the impression that Washington treats Lebanon not as a matter of justice or sovereignty, but as a geopolitical project. This serves political goals, not necessarily peace. And when diplomacy serves maximalist designs, it rarely produces stability.
An unattainable strategic goal
The crisis in southern Lebanon is not maintained because there is "resistance." It is maintained because occupation, military pressure, and policies that attempt to impose solutions through force continue. Israel seems to seek an unattainable strategic goal: the neutralization of Hezbollah through pressure and attrition. The US appears to cover this line instead of correcting it. As long as this approach continues, the conflict will not cool down. It will remain hot.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments