Israel defends borders while Arab regimes deflect blame, delaying Hezbollah disarmament and regional stability goals.
A report by Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar reveals that during a guided tour of southern Lebanon, foreign ambassadors and military attachés were briefed on Beirut’s supposed roadmap to dismantle Hezbollah’s military presence south of the Litani River. Lebanese Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal used maps and operational visuals to outline phased steps, portraying a methodical process that, in theory, should have already curbed Hezbollah’s dominance.
Yet when pressed on why tangible results remain absent, Haykal shifted responsibility toward Israel—claiming Israeli defensive strikes and alleged ceasefire violations obstruct progress. According to his presentation, areas currently secured by Israel after the ceasefire were highlighted as impediments, despite Israel’s stated objective of preventing Hezbollah’s rearmament and cross-border terror.
Crucially, Haykal admitted that the second phase of disarmament hinges not on Lebanese resolve, but on Israel’s restraint and withdrawal—effectively conditioning Lebanon’s obligations on Israel’s security choices. Critics argue this framing exposes a familiar pattern across Arab states: deflection over accountability, delay over decisive action, and tolerance of militias that destabilize the region.
From Israel’s perspective, strikes are not violations but necessities—responses to Hezbollah’s continued entrenchment among civilians, weapons stockpiling, and ceasefire manipulation. As long as Arab governments hesitate to confront armed proxies, Israel remains the last line of defense against a militia committed to perpetual conflict rather than peace.
