If I Had Known!

The seven southern towns that were cut off of Lebanon during the French Mandate, and have now become Israeli settlements, remain in the Lebanese collective memory, particularly that of the South.
There are several reasons to remember these towns, given the emerging threats to geographic integrity. About a week ago, Republican Party candidate Donald Trump lamented the size of the Israeli entity, voicing his aspiration for its expansion as he stood before a map of the Eastern Mediterranean. As a reminder, President Trump supported Israel’s annexation of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights, as well as the annexation of Jerusalem, to which he relocated the American embassy. This coincided with a threat made by an "Israeli military source" who warned that "our borders with Lebanon will change, and they will not remain as they had been before the war!"
This threat was reiterated last Sunday, this time by Netanyahu. It was made just hours after the seemingly choreographed and prearranged clashes between Israel and Hezbollah, with Israel announcing preemptive airstrikes on Hezbollah sites before Hezbollah retaliated (25 days later) to the assassination of their military commander, Fuad Shukr, by launching 340 Katyusha rockets. Netanyahu boasted that Israel had thwarted Hezbollah's offensive plans, saying that Nasrallah and the Iranian regime should know that "this is a step towards changing the situation in the north!”
We should also remember that, when the brutal war on the Gaza Strip began, Washington sent the Israeli leadership a list of actions that the latter was prohibited from undertaking, including the annexation of any segment of the Gaza Strip. However, the Israeli extremist government established a "security belt" that ranges between 2 and 4 kilometers to the north of the Strip. It amounts to over 15 percent of Gaza, whose 2.3 million citizens are crammed into its 365 square kilometers. The pretext was preventing a repeat of the October 7 attack from the south.
It is worth mentioning the discussions between the foreign delegations that visited Beirut in succession- especially US Envoy Amos Hochstein- and Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Minister Najib Mikati, the two main frontmen for the Resistance Axis in Lebanon. the cessation of escalation by Hezbollah, which had declared a "distraction" and "support" war. The delegations demanded that the South be addressed separately from Gaza and that serious steps be taken to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701, through Hezbollah’s withdrawal to around 10 kilometers to the north of the Litani River. This first step, in their proposals, would be followed by settling the border dispute that has not been addressed since the delineation of the Blue Line.
The officials, who had accepted the role of messengers, adhered to the positions dictated to them by Hezbollah. They demanded that Israel stop violations of the Resolution and comply with the resolution, which Lebanon has abided by (...) expressing astonishment at the withdrawal request because Hezbollah militants are residents of these villages... then saying that the envoys had no other aim than to ensure stability in northern Israel and allow the settlers to return to their home, allowing the Lebanese who had been displaced to also return to their towns and villages.
Many catastrophic outcomes could have been avoided if the officials making decisions had complied with their constitutional duties. For once, they could have prioritized the national interests over covering the project that Iran has assigned to Hezbollah. The "distraction" campaigns have backfired and precipitated a systematic assault through which the enemy created several small Gazas on the southern border. They imposed a security belt through fire, burning orchards and forests, destroying livestock, and contaminating soil and water with phosphorus, which has made living and working there impossible. As a result, Hezbollah was forced to retreat from the borders, and in some areas, to retreat to the north of the Litani River.
Not a single official batted an eye following this systematic destruction, nor did any officials heed the cries of over 100,000 people who had been uprooted from their land, lost their life savings, and were left exposed. Highlighting the destruction left by this campaign, as well as its 625 casualties (including around 400 Hezbollah cadres and field leaders) condemns both sides: Hezbollah, which dragged Lebanon into a destructive war without managing to protect a single roof or save a single life in Gaza, and of the remnants of state authority that accepted to play the role of messenger and parrot the positions of the statelet.
As Israel regained the initiative and re-established deterrence, it began targeting cadres and leaders. Its immense firepower, intelligence breaches, and advanced technology have allowed it to take lives. The objective of the war in the south is clear: preventing an "October 7" from Lebanon. Thus, no settlement could allow for a return to the pre-Aqsa Flood status quo. To that end, dozens of towns could be made to remain uninhabited rubble that is under control, either directly or by fire, to ensure northern Israel’s security, and Israel would receive international support in this effort.
Talking about the persistence of "resistance" would do nothing to help. By then, isolated from its surroundings and a pawn in the Iranian project, Lebanon would not benefit from recalling Nasrallah's famous phrase from the July 2006 war, "if I had known." Indeed, we could see a multiple of seven villages! Accommodating the displaced in other regions could open the door to grave tragedies in a country that has been sharply split by Hezbollah's arrogance and disregard for the interests and lives of the Lebanese people.