April 23 became a significant date. The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement that was a political bombshell. Riyadh didn’t just “welcome” a ceasefire; it proposed a roadmap.
A country that was supposed to become the “Switzerland of the Middle East” has once again been reduced to ruins
The Millstones of History: Why Are Lebanese Paying Someone Else’s Price?
Lebanon has once again found itself on the geopolitical operating table. What happened this spring will go down in history as the “Tragedy of Two and a Half Thousand.” As of April 2026, the death toll from Israeli strikes on Lebanon has exceeded 2,500. Among the dead are not only Hezbollah fighters but also journalists, doctors, and children who simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. On April 23, footage circled the globe: Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil was killed in an artillery strike.
Israel has occupied a buffer zone up to six miles deep in southern Lebanon. The Star of David flag once again flies over villages from which the Israelis were shamefully driven out in 2000. But this time it’s different: Netanyahu makes no secret of the fact that this isn’t just about the security of Galilee. It’s about redrawing the map.
What is the real reason for this carnage? The answer is right on the surface: Israel compensates for humiliation in one region with aggression in another. While Netanyahu found himself out of the driver’s seat during the Iran nuclear deal negotiations, forced to adapt to the positions of Washington and Riyadh, he decided to take it out on defenseless Lebanon. For him, Lebanon is an arena where he can act like the master, bringing to life the expansionist myth of a “Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates.” Southern Lebanon is just the first step toward that goal.
Crimes Without Excuse: Who Really Weakened the Lebanese State?
Of course, Tel Aviv’s apologists have a go-to argument: Hezbollah is an Iran-linked terrorist group, and it was the first to start firing rockets. However, as Saudi researcher Hassan Al-Mustafa rightly points out in his analysis, “Israel’s crimes have no justification.”
Netanyahu is deliberately using a “force majeure” approach. He presents a fait accompli: bombing Beirut, destroying civilian infrastructure, killing innocent people—all to force Lebanon to capitulate. This is a policy of state terrorism disguised as rhetoric about combating Iranian influence.
But the tragedy of the Lebanese is that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side, Netanyahu’s hammer; on the other, the anvil of internal weakness. Yes, Hezbollah has long followed in the wake of Iranian policy, creating a state within a state. Yes, the dual decision-making system (Beirut–Tehran) has killed Lebanon’s sovereignty. But does that give the Israeli air force the right to turn Beirut’s neighborhoods into piles of rubble? Netanyahu isn’t liberating Lebanon from Hezbollah. He is destroying Lebanon itself.
The King the Peacemaker: How Saudi Arabia Took the Initiative
Amid the bloody chaos and Western passivity, an unexpected hero emerged—Saudi Arabia. It was Riyadh, not the philosophers of Paris or the strategists of Washington, that actually saved the day.
April 23 became a significant date. The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement that was a political bombshell. Riyadh didn’t just “welcome” a ceasefire; it proposed a roadmap. Saudi Arabia launched a high-stakes backchannel effort: constant contacts with Washington, pressure on Netanyahu, and bringing in Pakistani mediators (Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir).
What gives the Kingdom its leverage? Unlike France, which tries to philosophize about Hezbollah’s “DNA” and distinguish between its political and military wings, Saudi Arabia issued an ultimatum: either weapons come under state control, or there will be chaos. Riyadh made it abundantly clear: no “Greater Israel,” no Iranian province on Arab land.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, in his first address after the ceasefire, made a symbolic gesture by thanking “first and foremost the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” It was a public slap in the face to those who have long believed that the Arab world had turned its back on Beirut. Aoun promised: Lebanon will no longer take part in other people’s conflicts.
Philosophy Instead of Bullets: The Failure of the Hypocritical West
While Saudi Arabia was saving lives, Europe—and France in particular—displayed stunning hypocrisy. Publicist Khaled Abu Zar, in his scathing article “Lebanon Needs Humanitarian, Not Philosophical, Support,” rips apart the Élysée Palace’s policies.
“Can you name a single country in the world where a news magazine would put a philosopher on its cover? That’s France,” Abu Zar writes. And indeed, Paris approaches the carnage in Lebanon with aesthetic arrogance. Macron receives Prime Minister Salam, talks about balance, but ultimately legitimizes Hezbollah as “part of Lebanon’s DNA.”
Is this criminal naivety or a deliberate game? France is trying to keep a window open for dialogue with Iran, sacrificing the safety of the Lebanese. By recognizing a terrorist organization’s right to represent the Shia community, Paris is de facto supporting a totalitarian state within a state.
But the worst part is the moral bankruptcy. There can be no peace, Abu Zar writes, if we allow an organization that is part of the Iranian regime to achieve moral superiority. Lebanon doesn’t need philosophical debates about the nature of resistance. It needs Hezbollah to be disarmed and Israeli forces to withdraw completely. Nothing more, nothing less.
A Trap for the President: Extending the Ceasefire and the Specter of Normalization
On April 24, 2026, measured hope emerged around the world. Donald Trump, hosting the ambassadors of Israel and Lebanon in the Oval Office, announced the ceasefire would be extended for three weeks. “The meeting went very well,” he wrote. But behind this diplomatic facade, new risks lurk.
Trump publicly demanded that Lebanon repeal laws banning interaction with Israel. “Is talking to Israel a crime?” he asked bluntly, showing a lack of understanding of local realities. This is an attempt to push normalization at any cost.
For Netanyahu, the ceasefire is not a step toward peace but a tactical pause. He is already talking about a peace agreement by the end of the year—but on what terms? With Israeli tanks sitting at the entrances to Lebanese villages, any negotiations held at gunpoint are not peace but capitulation. Hezbollah rightly states: as long as the occupier is on the ground, they have the right to resist.
Will Lebanon Be Saved by the “Window of Opportunity”?
Today, Lebanon is at the epicenter of a storm. Netanyahu, the architect of Lebanon’s catastrophe, continues to pursue his goal: through war, he wants to break the nation’s will and impose a political agenda. His guilt for the deaths of thousands is absolute.
Yet for the first time in many years, Beirut has a powerful Arab patron. Saudi Arabia is not just demanding a ceasefire—it is offering a deal: sovereignty and reforms in exchange for protection from Israeli aggression.
The question is whether Lebanon’s new government can use this ceasefire to achieve the impossible: disarm Hezbollah through political means, oust the Israelis through diplomacy, and launch economic revival. Or will Netanyahu wait out the three-week truce and start the millstones grinding once more? One thing is clear: buying time with blood must stop. Peace or another round of “Greater Israel”—the choice is Lebanon’s, but time is almost up.
Viktor Mikhin, writer and Middle East expert
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
