If we were to avoid skepticism of the so-called Resistance Axis’ intentions- despite the many valid reasons to be skeptical and assume that their actions genuinely reflect a perspective- we could claim that they are pushing the Lebanese to finalize their defeat in the name of the victory they claim to have attained. Their actions contradict undeniable facts accumulating under our noses before our eyes: we have undeniably been defeated, and saying so does not reflect lust for defeat or a penchant for dramatization; we were defeated because the resistance led us into a war that it lost, that its entire Axis lost- emphatically- leading to our collective defeat, whether we like it or not. Demanding that resistance be the means for overcoming this defeat amounts to insistence on using the irritant to treat the infection, thereby turning illness into death.
Meanwhile, the leading figures of the new era, Presidents Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam, are trying to contain the defeat and allow Lebanon to cut its losses. Their monumentally challenging task is made even more difficult by the fact that they are squeezed between the defeated side's rhetorical provocations to incriminate the two men and paint them as traitors, and the actionable plans that the victorious Israelis might well have in store.
This war that followed a monumental economic collapse has left Lebanon in an extremely weak negotiating position. The Jewish state is seeking to take advantage of its advantage to the very last drop. It had told the Lebanese that it would not withdraw its forces by the extended deadline, and according to media leaks, Tel Aviv has rejected compromise proposals, such as the deployment of international or even American forces in the locations where it insists on maintaining a presence. It has simultaneously been launching air raids, building military infrastructure, and flying warplanes over our skies at low altitudes to create sonic booms, etc..., threatening to dash the hope generated by the election of a president and the formation of a government.
It seems that his approach extends beyond Lebanon. Earlier, Israel met Assad's downfall and escape, and the emergence of a new order in Syria, with intensified airstrikes and further territorial expansion into Syria- actions akin to crashing a wedding by holding a funeral.
These statements and actions allow for the assumption that Israel, with typical hubris and belligerence, but also with the rigid equivalence it draws between politics and the balance of power, is greeting the new state of affairs in both countries by humiliating them and cruelly testing them.
True, Tel Aviv has been claiming that security concerns, specifically ensuring that it is never subjected to another October 7, are behind its actions. However, Israel likely wants more than a security return and may now be betting that it could attain political returns as well, continuing its humiliation and blackmail of the new leaderships of both countries until they give in.
There is no doubt that our current experience differs from that of the 1980s in fundamental ways. However, purely from the chain of events that led us to where we are today, the Israelis could draw inspiration from their relationship with Lebanon’s recently elected president, at the time, Bachir Gemayel. We know that during the infamous Nahariya meeting, Menachem Begin demanded that Gemayel sign a peace treaty and threatened to crush "the ingrate" otherwise.
The contrasts between past and present aggravate the imbalance: Begin’s coarse posture was, to some extent, restrained by the president of the United States at the time. Despite his strong Israel bias, Reagan maintained a position that parallels that of the Jewish state, not a congruent position, be it with regard to Gemayel or Lebanon as a whole. In the summer of 1982, when Israeli forces pressed forward beyond South Lebanon and began bombing the Palestine Liberation Organization in Beirut, Reagan and Begin had the famous heated phone call in which the former demanded that Begin end the operation. During the invasion, Reagan intervened personally when Israel threatened to bomb the Commodore Hotel, where dozens of foreign journalists had been staying. He later imposed restrictions on military aid to Tel Aviv, forcing it to withdraw from Beirut and the Lebanese interior. Shortly after that, when then-president Amine Gemayel was negotiating the May 17 Agreement, the Americans colluded with the Lebanese to curb Israel’s excessive demands. In today’s Trump-Netanyahu duo, on the other hand, we see far more congruence than divergence.
The "New Middle East" theory that Netanyahu claims as his own could entail demands that the new political order in both countries repay debts they had never taken on. If Bashir Gemayel had been pushed into reluctantly seeking Israel’s help, neither Ahmad Sharaa, Joseph Aoun, nor Nawaf Salam have done so. Netanyahu might nonetheless believe that they owe him something for what he has done; for their part, they might seek to mask their discomfort by keeping a tight lip and remaining in denial. All of that fuels Tel Aviv’s appetite for humiliation and subjugation, and it would weaken these emerging political orders’ weak negotiating position even further. Given this wanton disregard for political and diplomatic processes, we now see governments that have not signed peace treaties being treated much like non-state actors and militias. They are being squeezed and having their sovereignty violated until they pay the political price Israel seeks.
The situation, then, is delicate and critical. In light of this severely skewed balance of power, we need broad cooperation around a responsible program that mitigates the defeat and allows for cutting our losses. As for the so-called "resistance" figures attacking Aoun and Salam as they play games that fuse frivolity with hypocrisy, as well as recklessness and subservience to a foreign agenda (whether at the airport or elsewhere), it would be best for them to stop pushing Lebanon to the abyss under the pretense of saving it like they had "saved" it during their war.
