AN EVERLASTING DIRE SITUATION.......

 

The Turkish newspaper "dailysabah" published a new report discussing the issue of disarmament of "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. And the assassinations carried out by Israel against the leaders and members of the "Party"

The report, translated by Lebanon24 , states that "Lebanon is once again on the brink of a new war with Israel, and this time the danger appears to be more structural than incidental." It adds, "On one hand, the agenda to disarm Hezbollah is being strongly pushed through diplomatic pressure led by..."USAnd its regional allies, on the other hand, Israel continues to broadcast messages of direct military threat through daily ceasefire violations, targeted assassinations, and expanding the scope of its operations.

The report argued that “the assassination of Hezbollah military commander Haitham Tabatabai in late November was not just an isolated security incident, but rather a deliberate indication that Israel does not treat the ceasefire as a binding framework, but as a tactical pause to shape the next phase of escalation.” It added: “Tel Aviv’s strategy does not aim to stabilize the status quo, but rather to exploit the current balance of weakness to prevent Hezbollah from returning as a permanent deterrent force. In this sense, the goal is not mutual deterrence through restraint, but deterrence through structural weakness.”

It added: "Alongside military pressure, diplomacy itself has taken on a more assertive character, and Egypt has recently emerged as one of the key players conveying this pressure. Following previous mediation efforts led by intelligence chief Hassan Rashad, when he visited Beirut with "Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel-Aati. This visit represented a significant departure from previous de-escalation efforts. Unlike earlier initiatives based on restraint and crisis management, this visit underscored for Lebanese officials that unless Hezbollah disarms and Lebanon enters into direct negotiations with Israel, the country could face dire consequences. Most importantly, Egypt moved away from previous proposals that focused on an arms freeze and instead proposed a complete nationwide disarmament.

The report continued: "This change reflects Washington's growing frustration with the slow pace of political engineering in Lebanon. After the regime change in Syria Following the reshuffling of power in Beirut, it was expected that Hezbollah would be quickly squeezed through institutional mechanisms. Indeed, the Lebanese parliament tasked the army with preparing a national disarmament plan by the end of 2025. However, despite the election of a pro-Western president and the formation of a new government, Hezbollah continued to maintain its popular base and political influence, which slowed the implementation of the disarmament project and revealed the limits of external control over Lebanon's fragmented political structure.

It added: "For his part, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has so far refrained from endorsing any scenario for forced disarmament, and the reason is clear: imposing disarmament through the Lebanese armed forces carries a high risk of triggering internal military divisions, or even civil war. The army itself has expressed these concerns, and it is widely understood that it is trying to remain relatively neutral.

It added, "For Washington, which has invested heavily in strengthening the Lebanese army as a counterweight to Hezbollah, this situation is deeply troubling. From the American perspective, the army's hesitation indirectly reinforces Hezbollah's domestic legitimacy by implicitly asserting that Israel, not Hezbollah has the upper hand. 

It said: “Tensions escalated further when Army Commander Rudolph Haykal publicly criticized Israel’s ceasefire violations, describing it as an enemy. Shortly afterward, his planned visit to Washington was abruptly canceled. Following this, political circles in Beirut began openly discussing the possibility of external attempts to influence the army leadership. Whether these scenarios materialize or not, their very discussion demonstrates the extent to which Lebanese military sovereignty is exposed to foreign agendas.

It continued: "After failing to generate sufficient pressure from within, Israel and the United States turned to intensifying external pressure. Assassinations, financial sanctions, and increasingly explicit threats delivered through intermediaries have become a unified pressure mechanism targeting Hezbollah and the political Lebanese system. Both are taking place, while a broad financial blockade is being imposed to weaken Hezbollah's funding channels. At the same time, the Lebanese state's continued silence in the face of these violations is exacerbating the Israeli situation. The contradiction between declared sovereignty and actual subservience.”

It continued: “This contradiction was further highlighted by the recent maritime border demarcation agreement signed between Lebanon and Southern Cyprus. Although technical discussions date back years, its political timing—coming directly after tensions between the Lebanese army leadership and Washington—was widely interpreted as a gesture of goodwill toward the United States. Given Southern Cyprus’s strategic alignment with Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean, Hezbollah circles framed the agreement as a concession of sovereign rights. In this sense, the deal was not widely viewed as merely a legal arrangement, but rather as a political signal of compliance with the American regional order.

The report continued: “In light of all this, and from Israel’s perspective, three clear messages are now being conveyed to Hezbollah: First, the top leadership is no longer immune from direct targeting; second, Syria is no longer able to serve as a safe rear base; and third, any future confrontation will not be confined to southern Lebanon. All of this represents a qualitative shift in the logic of deterrence. Furthermore, Israel is no longer signaling containment, but rather creating the conditions for a regional escalation under more favorable geopolitical circumstances.”

The report concluded that “for Hezbollah, strategic options are dwindling,” stating: “Since the Gaza war, the party has adopted a principle of strategic patience, enduring repeated Israeli violations and avoiding actions that could justify a full-scale war. However, this patience has come at a high price. Daily border strikes, targeted assassinations, economic strangulation, and psychological warfare are steadily eroding its military capabilities and political maneuvering capacity.” At the same time, the Lebanese government’s failure to confront Israeli aggression leaves Hezbollah operating within a state that speaks the language of sovereignty but lacks the capacity to defend its territory.

The report continued, “In such an environment, we are approaching a dangerous threshold, and the accumulation of pressure may ultimately push Hezbollah to a point where restraint becomes unsustainable. In reality, this would not be an ideological escalation, but rather a forced response to systematic elimination. At the same time, Hezbollah is fully aware that hasty military action could give Israel the pretext it seeks for a full-scale war.”

The report concluded, “For this reason, the parliamentary elections in May 2026 represent perhaps the last meaningful political way out of a catastrophic confrontation. If Hezbollah secures a strong electoral mandate, it may be able to contain the army-centric disarmament project through institutional channels and limit the presidency’s room for maneuver.” For its part, Israel is fully aware of this political timeline, and from Tel Aviv's strategic perspective, the period preceding the electoral rebalancing may represent the most opportune moment to deliver a decisive blow.

The report asserted that "any such confrontation will not be confined to Lebanon, as Hezbollah does not operate in isolation, and any existential threat will inevitably trigger regional reactions." It added, "Iranian signals have already intensified, with Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to the Iranian leadership, publicly stating that Hezbollah's existence is more vital to Lebanon than bread and water. This message clearly indicates that any campaign of annihilation will not remain a local conflict but will escalate into a multi-pronged regional war."

The report continued, "Although Lebanon entered 2025 with cautious optimism following the formation of a new presidency and government, as the year progresses, it finds itself more embroiled in external power struggles than at any time since 2006. The state, which speaks of sovereignty, is simultaneously powerless to halt Israeli aggression, prevent foreign interference in its military leadership, or protect its territory from becoming a proxy war zone."

It continued: “The contradiction has become clear. There is a government that is unable to stop the occupation and is demanding disarmament; and a state that is unable to protect its borders is seeking to dismantle its basic deterrent force in the country. If Israel launches a preemptive war with an American mandate, the Middle East will not only face another Lebanese war, but will enter a broader and more dangerous phase of regional confrontation. In such a scenario, Lebanon will once again be reduced to a playing field rather than an actor, and its sovereignty will be discussed rhetorically while it is practically dismantled under the weight of external pressure and internal paralysis.

A very lucid and factual report by the Turkish newspaper, It's more of a direct Turkish message than a description of the situation on the ground. Albeit being a bit old, it is a still ongoing situation, more so with the new introduction by Mr. Trump of a new element, of Syria taking care of Hezbollah, a plan that will surely lead to lots of chaos for the area and the partition of Lebanon into several parts, and taken over by Israel in the entire south, Syria under a possible Turkish umbrella in the complete north including the port city of Tripoli,  and the Bekaa valey.  and the creation of couple ethnic entities, as in a Druz enclave adjacent to the Druze south Syrian under Israeli occupation, and possibly a small Maronite/Christian enclave to remind the world of the "good old Lebanon". Now is Iran a complicit in this scenario, more so after the new agreements with the US. Only Time will tell. 

Translated from Arabic, and arranged to fit our blog, with my comments,  for the better understanding and benefit of our blog readers.   As always, my many thanks to all. 

CONDEMNING SETTLER VIOLENCE IS NOT ENOUGH....

 

Now and then, there’s an episode of settler violence in the West Bank that’s so grotesque that it kind of breaks through a little bit in American media. I mean, settler violence—again, especially under this government, especially since October 7th—is so pervasive that generally, it’s just kind of noise for the American media. It doesn’t really get picked up very much, or in the American Jewish community. But occasionally something is so terrible that it breaks through, and it’s interesting to watch the way that Israel’s defenders in the United States tend to respond to this.

Generally, you find that there’s a kind of condemnation of settler violence, and people say this is really terrible. And this is not, you know, this is not who Israel is, this is not who Israel should be. That kind of thing. It’s a little bit similar sometimes to the way those same people talk about Itamar Ben-Gvir. When they have to talk about Itamar Ben-Gvir, they’ll say, Itamar Ben-Gvir is an extremist, he’s a radical, you know, he’s not a good guy, he’s not like those other mainstream Israeli politicians.

I want to suggest that there’s something fundamentally incoherent about this response. That just as Itamar Ben-Gavir can’t be disassociated from Israeli politics as a whole, given that his rise was facilitated by Benjamin Netanyahu, who needed to help broker the deal with him and the other national religious parties in order to bring him into the government to create a coalition. So, he’s not a rogue actor. He’s actually a very critical ally, someone who’s been very critical to Benjamin Netanyahu’s continuing in power.

Settler violence is also not a rogue activity. It’s not something that happens separate from the Israeli state, or the Israeli mainstream. And I want to quote from a report that B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, did, which was called, Settler Violence = State Violence. And they write: ‘the state takes over land openly.’ They’re talking about Israeli state taking over land in the West Bank from Palestinian land. They’re saying:

‘The state takes over land openly using official methods sanctioned by legal advisors and judges, while the settlers, who are also interested in taking over land to further their agenda, initiate violence against Palestinians for their own reasons. Yet in truth, there is only one track. Settler violence against Palestinians is part of the strategy employed by Israel’s apartheid regime, which seeks to take over more and more West Bank land. The state fully supports and assists these acts of violence, and its agents sometimes participate in them directly. As such, settler violence is a form of government policy aided and abetted by official state authorities with their active participation.’

Now, that’s not to say there aren’t Israeli officials who might be genuinely upset or even appalled by things that settlers do. They may think it’s terrible PR. They may even think that they’re morally wrong.

Again, to use a kind of crude analogy, we can imagine a situation in the Jim Crow South where there were things that the Ku Klux Klan did that segregationist leaders wished they hadn’t done. It was a bad reputation. It just wasn’t the way they wanted to do business. But the general thrust of the policy, right, in the Jim Crow South was to keep Black people down, to deny them their basic rights, their basic freedom, through a whole mechanism of violence, some state-sanctioned and some outside of the state, but which could not take place—the Ku Klux Klan could not have operated without the fact that the white-controlled judicial system gave them, you know, almost total impunity.

Similarly, settlers can only do what they do, the settlements require government support to exist in the first place, and the settlers could not continue to act this way against Palestinians without the base large-scale impunity that they exist in a political system in which the people who they are victimizing don’t have citizenship, don’t have the right to vote, are not truly represented by the state, and therefore can’t take meaningful legal action against them, except in the rarest of circumstances.

So, Israel’s defenders who say, this settler violence is terrible. I’m opposed to it. They may genuinely think it’s terrible. They may genuinely think they are opposed to it. But they’re not really opposed to it unless they’re willing to do something that would make it stop. And the thing that would make it stop would be to change U.S. policy towards Israel, right? The only thing that would make it stop would be if there were severe consequences for the Israeli government for allowing it to continue, right?

And so, the question I think one should ask any defender of Israel, whether it’s a, you know, Jewish official, or a politician, or a kind of someone in the media who says, I’m against settler violence, is, would you be willing to condition American military aid—all of it, or even some of American military aid on Israel stopping this settler violence? Would you be willing to support a process in international legal institutions to punish Israel for allowing the settler violence that terrorizes Palestinians?

Overwhelmingly, the answer to that question will be, no, we are not willing to support that. Because although we say we oppose settler violence, our most fundamental commitment is unconditional U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israel. And so, because of that, we will say we oppose settler violence, but we’re not actually willing to support any of the tangible consequences by which the U.S. could use its substantial leverage over Israel to actually end the status of impunity that allows Israel to do this.

And that’s why I think the claim by supporters of Israel and the United States that they oppose settler violence is fundamentally hollow. Again, they may believe they oppose settler violence, but there’s often a difference between what people believe and what their actions actually do, right? We can tell what people’s truest belief systems are by the actions they pursue, right? And if the actions you pursue is unconditional U.S. support for Israel period, then you’re not actually opposed to settler violence, because you don’t want your government, the United States government, to do the things that might actually stop settler violence.

 1 Billion for Settlement Expansion: This week, the Israeli government decided to fast-track 1 billion shekels (over $300 million) to build dozens of new settlements in the occupied West Bank – a massive win for far-right minister Bezalel Smotrich and the settler terrorists he emboldens.

• “Israeli security and Palestinian freedom are intertwined. As long as the Netanyahu government continues to implement a radical, expansionist agenda, there will never be a path to safety, freedom and dignity for either people,”

Actually it's a continuation of a previous article under the title" A good analysis"  again from the very interesting site by Peter Beinart, I divided the article into two parts to better fit our blog, the other part will appear soon on our blog, the subjects are sort of related, as they deal with Israel and its occupation and behavior towards its Palestinian population by its present political regime. Again this article will shed more light to the sad and tragic situation over there. 

My many thanks to all.  

POPE LEO XIV......

 

The Pope may have just published the most radically humanist text of the year.

With Magnifica Humanitas, the first American pope penned a text on digital colonialism, the new religion of Silicon Valley, and the extreme concentration of tech power. It focuses on those who own the data, the machines, the available minds. On this new elite that no longer owns just the factories (as in the 19th century), but also the flow of attention, the algorithms, and the markets of truth.

Leo XIV wasn't named Leo by chance… In 1891, Leo XIII published "Rerum Novarum," the Church's famous social doctrine. Faced with the industrial revolution, he dared to say that the worker was not a machine part, that capital could not devour human dignity. In 2026, Leo XIV picks up the thread. Faced with the digital revolution, he essentially says: the human being is not a given, not a resource, not a variable for optimization.

What strikes me first is the political power of the text. Leo XIV speaks of slavery. He acknowledges the delay with which the Church and society condemned this scourge. He speaks of a "wound in Christian memory." And he asks for "forgiveness" in the name of the Church. This is rare. It is immense. Because this sentence forces everyone, believers or not, to confront a truth: great institutions sometimes err for centuries when they take the side of the oppressed too late.

Then, as a lawyer, I am struck by the sheer number of references to the major institutions of international law: the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Refugee Convention, and even environmental texts. And Leo XIV adds this weighty sentence: “Moral conquests almost always take the form of a long and arduous path, also marked by setbacks: think of interrupted peace processes or slow implementation of environmental commitments.” One inevitably thinks of Gaza. Of climate change denial. Of everything our era is methodically dismantling, while cynics explain that international law is naive and that force has once again become the only language of the world.

And most impressively, Leo XIV cites the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and the fight against apartheid. He even invokes Hannah Arendt, for the first time in an encyclical, to remind us of this chilling truth: totalitarianism does not triumph simply when people believe lies. It triumphs when they can no longer distinguish truth from falsehood. When facts become opinions. When the press is replaced by noise. When fake news becomes an industry. When everyone is trapped in their own bubble, fed by an algorithm that seeks not truth, but attention.

This is precisely our era. We believe we are free because we scroll. But we are tracked, measured, predicted, and guided. We believe we choose, when in fact our preferences are calculated. We believe we speak, when invisible structures decide what will be seen, amplified, rewarded, or buried. Attention capitalism doesn't just want our money. It wants our time, our anger, our solitude, our inner availability.

And Leo XIV goes even further. He doesn't just criticize the excesses of the market. He attacks the root cause. GDP doesn't measure dignity. Growth doesn't guarantee justice. Inequality isn't simply a problem of redistribution after the fact, once wealth has already been captured. It begins earlier, in the allocation of resources, technologies, know-how, and infrastructure. In other words: if a few giants control the tools of production in the digital world, then they also control a part of our shared future.

This is why the Pope wants to "disarm" AI. He calls for strong public regulation, a decentralization of tech giants, and more open, democratic, and humane governance. Simply put: AI cannot be left to a few private companies that alone decide what we see, what we know, what we desire, and perhaps tomorrow, what we are allowed to become.

Perhaps this is the most relevant lesson of Magnifica Humanitas: the new social question is no longer played out solely in mines and factories. It is played out in data centers, social networks, AI models, attention markets, surveillance systems, confirmation bubbles, and information warfare.

In 1891, the Church asked who would protect the worker from industrial capital. In 2026, Leo XIV asks who will protect humanity from algorithmic capital.

This question concerns all those who refuse to allow the world to become a vast machine for classifying human beings, capturing their desires, predicting their behavior, and selling off their freedom piece by piece.

Human dignity is not an exploitable commodity.

Got this very interesting Pope Leo XIV message by email in French, I'm not sure who the author is or the publisher, translated and arranged to fit our blog for better understanding of these modern times dilemmas facing our entire world population.

As always, my many thanks to all.  

HIDDEN MONEY IS HIDDEN INFLUENCE ....

 
Democratic primaries are increasingly shaped by billionaire-backed dark money — funds routed through PACs and opaque organizations that hide who is paying, who benefits, and what outcomes they are seeking. Recent reporting describes a coordinated network operating behind the scenes of the Democratic Party, quietly influencing which candidates rise and which ideas never gain traction.

That secrecy is intentional. When billionaires conceal their political spending, they can exert secret influence, backing candidates who will protect their financial interests while avoiding public scrutiny. One of the clearest stakes is tax policy: hidden money can help block or dilute efforts to tax extreme wealth more fairly before those ideas ever reach a real vote.

This “party within the party” moves millions through layered entities to shape races in ways voters can’t easily detect. Candidates who might challenge concentrated wealth can be sidelined early, while those aligned with maintaining the status quo receive unheralded but powerful support. The result is a political field tilted long before voters cast a ballot.

That’s why it’s essential to follow the money. When funding is hidden, so are the motives — like preserving and expanding tax advantages that benefit the wealthiest Americans. Dark money doesn’t just influence elections; it shapes the policy agenda by determining which candidates are viable in the first place.

Voters’ trust depends on transparency. Voters can’t identify corruption unless they know who gave the money.

Staying invisible is dark money’s super power. Once its sources, its pathways, and its goals are exposed, it can no longer shape outcomes in secrecy. Voters deserve to follow the money, understand who is influencing their elections, and ensure that policies like fair taxation are decided in the open, not blocked in the shadows.

Few short lines, by the brilliant Robert Reich, on his site "Inequality media" explaining and exposing a major problem nowadays in American politics, and influencing American politicians and legislators, it's becoming an open affair playing most if not all local and national elections and their outcomes. I'm forwarding the article for a better understanding of this old/new phenomenon reigning over America, as well as many other parts of the world. 

As always, my many thanks to all. 

MORE ON LEBANON AND THE LEBANESE ......

 

 *Jordanian journalist reveals the true secret of Lebanon!*

A few days ago, Jordanian journalist Abdul Hadi Raji Al-Majali wrote a remarkable article in the newspaper *Al-Raii* entitled *Lebanon*, in which he stated:

What do we mean by a strong state?
*The Zionist entity*, for example, made important preparations in anticipation of the strike, fortifying the home front.
They provided all ministers and army commanders with satellite phones...

They also opened shelters, found alternative fuel sources in case tanks were hit, provided massive quantities of medicine, contacted the West for military support, and even established a hotline with the US Central Command to secure continuous military assistance in case of a major attack.

What has Lebanon done?

I watch Lebanese TV channels and follow the news...
Lebanon is not very concerned about fuel, and its home front is completely secure...
Everyone there *loves each other...*

*Alyssa* produced a film on (Netflix) about her personal life, and this *film gained popularity in the scene*...
This is causing *controversy* in people's conversations.

*Restaurants* also produced special offers, for example, one restaurant in Beirut *offered an offer of (15) dollars* in which you could eat as much fresh seafood as you wanted and drink as much as you wanted.
Therefore, Elias decided to take his wife, his mother-in-law, his wife's sister, and their neighbor (Um Hussein) to the restaurant today...

Wael Kfoury held a lively concert and the tickets sold out in one hour.

*Question: What is the secret of Lebanon?...*

Lebanon is a very strange country; during war, people treat missiles as firecrackers.

And they go out into the streets and don't ask...

In the midst of *bank collapse* and *hard currency shortages*, *George* insists on going to the beach and *inviting friends over* and gives you an *important theory in economics* which says:
*( Brother, God will make things easier)...*

The South is being bombed every day, homes are being destroyed and demolished, yet I haven't seen a single Lebanese person appear on television and complain.

I didn't see a single Lebanese person packing their belongings and leaving.

Then I don't see a *female news anchor crying* or a *protest criticizing the current situation*...

*The important thing is that the Lebanese national reservoir of love remains reassuring..*

Is *Lebanon a real country* or a *joy factory*?

I do not know the secret of this country, the secret of this power, and this might...

But what I do know is that Middle East Airlines is still operating and the beautiful flight attendants are still smiling when the planes take off...

*Lovers still meet in (Al-Rawsha)*, and it doesn't matter what happens...what matters is that love grows there like a tree...

And *Fairouz's songs* are not songs at all. Whoever said that Fairouz was singing *doesn't know Lebanon...*
Fairouz was *planting cedars in people's hearts*, and *watering the sea with Rahbani melodies....*

It doesn't matter to them if flour runs out in the markets; what matters is that joy never leaves Aboud's eyes.

And more importantly, *(Umm Elias)* is able to feed *the entire neighborhood*, as she has a stockpile of *(kibbeh)* sufficient for everyone...*

This great nation treats war as a joke.

It treats *martyrs* as a *normal situation...*

*Bleeding* has become the fate of *the Lebanese*,
They *pay* their blood for the sake of Palestine, Arabism, and religion, and for the sake of keeping *Beirut dear with complete satisfaction*, without *doing* favors to anyone and without asking for *praise* from anyone.

Do not register Lebanon with the United Nations as a state.

*They even recorded it as the world's largest factory of joy and sugar,*

And *beware of writing on your passport* a box that says:

*Lebanese nationality..*
Instead, write the nationality: *A lover who embodies history, stories, and Arab identity...*

And always remember that the hair clip that the girls of Ashrafieh put on their braids in the morning when they go out to work is stronger than David's slingshot, and stronger than the Iron Dome.

At least this *(buckle)...* contains the hair that *was bathed in the words of Gibran...* and the poems of Saiid Akl...* contains the strands of hair immortalized by *Azar Habib*, and sung by *Nasri Shamseddine...*

I laugh when I read in the news statements by Netanyahu saying: "Beirut will be destroyed if Tel Aviv is attacked..."

This man *doesn't know Lebanon at all..*

They don't know that they are the only people who made the sea of ​​Beirut thirsty...so they quenched it with the voice of Fairouz and it was satisfied...

I'm going to Beirut tomorrow...

I want (the garden) to heal the stumbles of my soul and the weariness of my heart...

Long live Beirut...and let the sea thirst...Lebanon will remain the strongest.

*Abdul Hadi Raji Al-Majali*

I'm not sure if the writer is complementing or using his sarcasm with a twist, but the short article describes well the actual mood and attitudes prevailing in the country, even among the displaced, and the ones who lost loved ones, and the ones who lost their life long belongings and homes, they are all smiling even cheerful at some occasions, I had the message by email in Arabic, and thought of forwarding it to better understand how things are progressing in that unfortunate part of the world. 

My gratitude, as always, to all. 

THE PREVAILING LEBANESE SCENE NOWADAYS......

 

The negotiations are progressing beyond simply establishing a ceasefire or managing calm in the south of Lebanon. Washington announced a fourth round of negotiations on June 2 and 3, in parallel with the launch of a security track at the Pentagon on May 29, with the participation of military delegations from both sides, in a move that reflects the shift in the discussion from the framework of field calm to an attempt to formulate long-term security and political arrangements.

The ongoing negotiations are divided into two main tracks: the first is military, relating to a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal. The first track focuses on reconstruction, while the second revolves around the issue of the state's monopoly on weapons and sustainable security arrangements on the borders. Between these two tracks, concerns are growing that the proposed security gradual approach could become a pretext for redrawing internal power balances. Amid growing questions about the army's position and the future of Hezbollah weapons, That limits of the American role in reshaping the landscape.

The outcome of the negotiations. Washington On May 29, Brigadier General Dr. Bahaa Hilal explained that the region is not facing a mere ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, rather, it's facing an American attempt to reshape the Lebanese security and political structure within a new regional system, in which the definitions of security, sovereignty, the function of the state, and the role of weapons outside its official institutions are being redefined.

The information circulating about the security track indicates a multi-stage project starting from southern Lebanon, specifically south of the Litany River, under the title of consolidating the truce and preventing the return of the military front against Israel. But a deeper reading, according to Gen. Hilal, reveals that the objective goes far beyond that, gradually aiming to reshape the entire Lebanese security environment.

This begins with bolstering the army's deployment, establishing monitoring and coordination mechanisms under American auspices, linking reconstruction and financial support to security measures, and extending to the issue of Hezbollah's weapons north of the Litany River, then in the southern suburbs and Beirut. It is precisely here that the similarity to the May 17, 1983 agreement begins, not necessarily in its direct legal form, but rather in the underlying political and security philosophy of the project.

In both cases, the following emerges,  As Brigadier General Hilal states, the US acts as the sponsor, guarantor, and supervisor of the re-establishment of a new security balance, one in which the security of Israel and its northern borders holds absolute priority. The core of the current American proposal rests on the idea of ​​gradually transforming the Lebanese state into a security partner in controlling the resistance and its weapons. This echoes the philosophy underlying the May 17 Agreement, which linked Lebanese stability to security arrangements connected to Israel.

However, the fundamental difference between the periods of 1983 and 2026 lies in the shifting balance of power. In the 1980s, Israel occupied Lebanon. Large parts of Lebanon were under Israeli control, and the Lebanese state was virtually collapsed as the civil war raged. Today, the situation is far more complex. Israel has not achieved a decisive strategic victory, and Hezbollah, despite the strikes, still possesses significant military and organizational capabilities and a broad network of influence. Furthermore, the Shia community continues to view weapons as a means of protection and deterrence against Israel.

Therefore, the American strategy and approach appears to be closer to a long-term, gradual containment project, rather than imposing a direct or rapid surrender. Hence, according to Brigadier General Hilal, the talk is of a step-by-step approach: Lebanese security measures in exchange for de-escalation, economic support, reconstruction, and political and international guarantees.

In this sense, the security track is not a final agreement, but rather a cumulative process aimed at shifting the issue of weapons from a position of independent power to one of negotiation and restriction. However, the most dangerous aspect of the proposed project, according to Brigadier General Hilal, does not only concern Hezbollah's weapons, but also the Lebanese military institution itself. The United States appears to be betting on the Lebanese army as the only legitimate instrument capable of implementing any future security arrangements. Therefore, the increasing American support for the army cannot be understood apart from the attempt to redefine its role in the coming phase. This highlights the delicate position of General Rudolph Haykal, the army commander, who finds himself facing one of the most complex dilemmas in the history of the Lebanese military: how to maintain relations with the international community and external support, while simultaneously preventing the army from sliding into an internal confrontation with the broader Lebanese public?

Historically, as Brigadier General Hilal emphasizes, the army was not built as an instrument of civil conflict, but rather as a national balancing force whose goal is to protect stability, prevent disintegration, and maintain a minimum level of national unity. Therefore, the most dangerous aspect of the current American proposal is not merely the idea of ​​disarmament, but the possibility of gradually drawing the army into an internal political and sectarian conflict under the guise of the state's monopoly on the use of force.

In this context, any talk, as Brigadier General Hilal says, of joint brigades or security arrangements directly linked to the American-Israeli vision will place the military establishment before a highly sensitive existential test. The move from south of the Litany River to its north, and then to the southern suburbs of Beirut, is not merely a geographical shift, but a move into the heart of the social and political environment that fosters the resistance.

It is precisely here, as Hilal says, that the comparison with the experience of Saad Haddad and Antoine Lahad becomes strongly present in the Lebanese consciousness. While it is true that the circumstances are radically different, and that the discussion today does not revolve around a separate local militia like the South Lebanon Army, the similarity lies in the same security philosophy: the creation of a Lebanese structure functionally linked to Israeli security under the guise of protecting the borders and controlling the resistance. However, the difference is that the current project does not attempt to build a "militia" parallel to the state, but rather seeks to utilize the state's own institutions, foremost among them the army, within a new regional security system that enjoys international and American backing.

Thus, the greatest Lebanese fear, as Brigadier General Hilal states, lies not only in the issue of normalization or negotiation, but also in the possibility that the division over the issue of weapons could transform into an internal rift threatening the very unity of the state. A swift or forced move toward an internal confrontation with Hezbollah could destabilize the military establishment, exacerbate sectarian tensions, and unravel Lebanon's fragile balances.

For this reason, Washington appears, thus far, to be steering matters gently, avoiding a full-blown explosion, because while a Lebanese civil war might achieve Israel's goal of weakening the resistance and depleting its support base, it could simultaneously open the door to regional chaos that would be difficult to control.

Therefore, according to Brigadier General Hilal, what is happening today can be described as an attempt to re-engineer Lebanon's security and political landscape through gradualism, containment, and pressure, rather than through direct military intervention. However, the success of this project remains contingent on an unresolved question: Can Lebanon redraft its internal social contract regarding the concepts of the state, weapons, and sovereignty without sliding into a new civil conflict?

This is precisely the question that will determine whether Lebanon is facing a new historical settlement or a more complex and updated version of the May 17th crisis and the civil war combined. Given this, Brigadier General Hilal believes that a step-by-step approach is the most realistic, as it is the practical model currently being proposed: a security measure in exchange for reduced attacks, aid, reconstruction, international support, and political guarantees. For example: removing weapons from south of the Litany River in exchange for de-escalation; strengthening the army in exchange for aid and armaments; monitoring border crossings in exchange for easing economic pressure; and discussing heavy weapons in exchange for political stability and reconstruction. This aligns with the American discourse advocating a gradual approach rather than an immediate resolution.

Again, a copied article from the Lebanese news site "Lebanon 24" by the talented Hitaf  Daham. forwarded to me , I translated it to fit and forward through our blog for the benefit of our readers for better understanding of the Lebanese dire situation. a good analysis and scenario that might reverse itself any time, as not all parties abide by the American or official Lebanese wishes. two players , Israel and Hezbollah with Iran might very well turn the table upside down. A quick escalation from any side might put an end to the entire process, and it's actually happening, as the American side imposed sanctions on several Lebanese officials including two army officers, a clear warning to the Lebanese side of likely escalation.  

As, always, my many thanks to all.  

A DIRE SITUATION INDEED.....

 

With attempts to reach an agreement to end the faltering war, an Israeli assessment suggests that the US president currently faces two options for dealing with Iran:

An Israeli source told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that "Mr. Trump" now has two options: either a limited and controlled military operation that does not lead to escalation, or a temporary agreement that allows negotiations to continue and the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened.

The source added that Israel wants to resume fighting by launching strikes on energy and infrastructure targets, which would significantly weaken the regime, as well as bombarding to ground major parts of Lebanon.

But according to the newspaper at this stage, it seems that Israel and the United States view things differently. Trump is not keen on a full-scale resumption of fighting, and the interim agreement will calm the situation between the two sides, allowing the strait to reopen, but it will not resolve all the issues."

In contrast, the Israelis believe that "Trump neither desires nor longs for a full-scale resumption of fighting, because he believes that this will not improve his position, but will rather complicate matters for him domestically. With another rise in energy prices and harm to allied countries," according to Yediot Aharonot's assessment.

The newspaper reports, according to an Israeli source, believes that "Israel prefers a more assertive approach, but does not want to be accused of dragging the American president into renewed fighting."

It adds that "one of the possibilities under discussion in Washington, the Americans might choose a limited military operation and continue the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz; in that case, they might ask for Israel commitment to neutrality and non-intervention, recognizing that Israel's response would be harsh if Iran launched missiles at it, potentially leading to a full-blown war.

The Israeli source stated that "neither the Iranians nor the Americans want a full-scale resumption of the war, so Israel may remain neutral this time."

However, according to Yediot Ahronoth, "Israel is preparing for all eventualities, including a scenario in which Trump orders a resumption of hostilities and Iran resumes launching missiles at Israel."

The newspaper noted that there's "concern in Israel" that Americans are only discussing the nuclear issue and the Strait of Hormuz with the Iranians, without ever mentioning ballistic missiles or proxies in the region—two crucial issues for Israel.

However, it is likely in Israel that Trump will wait until his return from his visit to China early next week to take his next step regarding Iran. 

A good report/analysis translated from the Lebanese news site "Lebanon 24", based on Israeli newspapers reports, copied here for better understanding of the weird situation over the entire Middle-East affecting the safety of the entire world.

As always, my many thanks to all.