Tag: lebanon

Yet Another Way Canada Supports ‘Greater Israel’

In a bid to further subordinate Lebanon to US and Israeli dictates, Canada is devoting significant resources to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). If the country descends into civil war Canada will bear some responsibility.

On Tuesday Canada’s ambassador to Lebanon Gregory Galligan had “a productive discussion with Lebanese Armed Forces Commander Gen. Haykal on the evolving security situation and implementation of the pilot zones. Canada is proud to support the LAF and its role in preserving Lebanon’s security and stability.” A week earlier ambassador Galligan posted about providing “600+ hygiene kits to women and girls from families of LAF soldiers affected by conflict.” Two months ago the ambassador announced a “useful discussion today with General Haykal and the Lebanese Armed Forces on the ongoing crisis. Reaffirmed Canada’s strong support for the LAF and its essential role in maintaining stability and security in Lebanon.” In February Canadian officials announced the “handing over of three rehabilitated warehouses to LAF.”

The Lebanese military is a western proxy, receiving most of its funds from foreign countries. Since Hezbollah delivered a strategic blow to Israel in the 2006 war the US has given more than $3 billion to the LAF. Washington provides half its budget while the European Union, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have also provided hundreds of millions of dollars.

Through the Canadian Training and Assistance Team-Lebanon, Ottawa has donated tens of millions of dollars in equipment and other support to the LAF as part of an effort to turn it into a counterweight to Hezbollah. They’ve also trained over 2,000 LAF personnel and since 2019 Lebanon has participated in Canada’s Military Training and Cooperation Program.

The past four Canadian ambassadors have met the LAF head and often on multiple occasions. The Commander of Canadian Joint Operations, Major General JR Auchterlonie, and Canadian Brigadier General, Louis Lapointe, participated in at least two of those meetings. Two years ago in Beirut then foreign affairs minister Melanie Joly met then LAF head, Joseph Aoun, who became president last year.

On multiple occasions the Canadian, British and US ambassadors have met the head of the LAF together. Canada also partnered with Britain on a project to support the LAF.

As part of the US-overseen Israel-Lebanon framework agreement, Washington is pushing to have the LAF replace Hezbollah in the south where Israel has destroyed dozens of villages and killed thousands. According to the recent framework accord partly designed to undercut the US Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, the Israeli military is to withdraw from designated “pilot zones” that will be taken over by Lebanese troops vetted by the US military. The LAF is then supposed to dismantle Hezbollah infrastructure and prevent the resistance organization from re-establishing itself in these areas. US officials in Beirut are overseeing an initiative that gives Israel justification for its illegal occupation.

Ottawa explicitly supports this odious initiative. Two weeks Global Affairs posted, “Canada will continue to support the efforts of the Lebanese government and Lebanese Armed Forces to disarm and demobilize Hezbollah.” But the Lebanese military is completely incapable of resisting Israel. In fact, the LAF immediately withdrew from the south when Israel was about to invade in September 2024. In the past when the LAF has offered any resistance to Israel the US has punished the force.

Keep reading

US Embassy Offers Large Cash Sums For Groups In Lebanon To Promote America’s Image

The US Embassy in Lebanon announced that the State Department is offering grants of up to $250,000 to groups that help promote American propaganda. 

“The US Embassy in Beirut is opening a new Notice of Funding Opportunity for 2026,” a statement published this week explained. “We’re looking for partners to implement programs that strengthen ties between the US and Lebanon, with a focus on highlighting US-led peace and stabilization efforts, and advancing digital literacy to help people identify and push back on false, adversarial narratives.“

The State Department website says the program is expected to award $500,000 to at least two groups to promote US propaganda in Lebanon.

It adds that the program’s goal is to “strengthen local public understanding of US-led peace and stabilization efforts, and its role as a partner committed to security, economic opportunity, and responsible regional leadership.”

Washington is attempting to broker a peace agreement between Tel Aviv and Beirut. However, Israel is at war with Hezbollah, a non-state military that operates outside of the control of the Lebanese government. 

While Beirut and Tel Aviv inked a deal last month, Hezbollah rejected the agreement because it allowed the IDF to occupy Lebanon until the militia is dismantled. 

According to some of the latest from The Associated Press:

After two days of U.S.-mediated talks in Rome, Lebanon and Israel took steps toward implementing “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon where Israeli forces would withdraw and turn over control to the Lebanese army, the U.S. State Department said Wednesday.

The latest Israel-Hezbollah war began when the Lebanese militant group fired rockets into Israel days after Israel and the U.S. launched their war on Iran on Feb. 28. Israel invaded Lebanon and has since occupied a large swathe of the country’s south. Hezbollah has been vehemently opposed to the direct Lebanon-Israel talks.

The attempt to negotiate a peace agreement between Tel Aviv and Beirut is making it more difficult for President Donald Trump to end the war against Iran.

Keep reading

Media Cheering a Deal That Puts Lebanon on the Chopping Block for Israel

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on June 26 triumphantly announced the “signing of the Trilateral Framework between Lebanon, Israel and the United States.” The document allegedly “builds a realistic path out of endless conflict” between Israel and Lebanon—“the inheritors of ancient civilizations that date back to the time of the Bible.”

According to Rubio:

This agreement establishes a clear and structured process to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty, disarm Hezbollah and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure, and enable Israel to return to its borders once that threat to its citizens is removed.

The framework also creates a cool-sounding “Military Coordination Group for Lebanon (MCG4L), facilitated by the United States.”

As should be immediately clear to anyone who has paid minimal attention to politics over the past 80 years, any US-brokered agreement between the two inheritors of ancient civilizations will automatically be designed to screw over Lebanon in favor of Israel—which has harbored designs on Lebanese territory from the get-go.

As Amnesty International noted, the agreement “betrays victims of war crimes in Lebanon” by essentially blocking their right to seek justice in international forums. It also signs off, Amnesty said, on the “prolonged and indefinite forced displacement of tens of thousands of residents of vast swathes of southern Lebanon occupied by Israeli forces.”

Keep reading

After Displacing Hundreds of Thousands, Netanyahu Claims Lebanese Christians Want Israel to Annex Their Villages

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that some Christian villages in Lebanon have “asked to be annexed” by Israel to gain protection from the Iran-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

“Among the Christian villages in Lebanon, some have even asked to be annexed to Israel, because we protect them from the fanatics of Hezbollah who want to kill them. And we do the same thing with Christians everywhere,” Netanyahu said in a Fox News interview.

“It’s not only the Christians in Lebanon who asked for our protection. It’s the Druze, it’s Muslims, the Sunni Muslims and quite a few of the Shiite Muslims, too,” he added.

Netanyahu did not specify which villages have made such requests to Israel. The mayor of the Christian village of Rmeish, Hanna al-Amil, quickly denied Netanyahu’s claim as “absolutely out of the question” in an interview with Lebanese public television.

“Fifteen Christian towns had issued a statement two days ago denying these allegations,” he said.

Amil was referring to a statement on Friday in which 13 Christian-majority border villages, including Rmeish, reiterated their commitment to the Lebanese government. The statement was issued in response to media rumors that some of these villages had asked Israel for protection.

The signatories said they had “no power, nor the legal right” to request protection from a foreign government. They reaffirmed their “loyalty to their national identity” and “attachment to their Lebanese flag.”

Amil told Arab News on Monday that the loyalty statement from the Christian border villages should be taken as their final word on the subject.

“The border villages have remained committed to the Lebanese state and its legitimacy throughout the war without wavering. Their residents take pride in their national identity and regard Lebanon as their final and permanent homeland, with no alternative on offer,” he said.

“They reject any attempt to twist their position or exploit their suffering in the service of agendas that have nothing to do with them. The fabricated reports serve only one purpose: to damage the reputation of the border communities and sow confusion,” he added.

Some residents of the Lebanese border region made it clear they were not pleased by the actions of Hezbollah, which triggered Israeli airstrikes and a ground invasion, and were not happy with Beirut’s inability to protect them.

“For three years now, we have been suffering because the Lebanese state failed to extend its sovereignty over its own land,” Rmeish civil activist Gaby al-Hajj told Arab News, looking back to hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel during the Gaza War.

“That left us at the mercy of illegal weapons, and we are paying for it now,” al-Hajj said. “The Israelis have us under siege – yet we refused to leave our villages. We have not turned our backs on Lebanon and we will not. We have held on, regardless of the cost.”

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Monday praised the loyalty statement from border villages, and warned Lebanese citizens to ignore “Israeli political misinformation” intended to “sow discord among border communities.”

Berri also urged the Beirut government and its allies to halt the “systematic destruction and the ongoing demolition of villages.”

Israel issued evacuation orders to border towns before launching its latest operation against Hezbollah, warning that it could not overlook these villages because Hezbollah operatives were known to hide in them.

As the statement on Friday pointed out, many of the Christian villagers refused to evacuate. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have demolished buildings and homes in southern Lebanon that were allegedly used by Hezbollah to hide its fighters and weapons.

Residents of the Marjeyoun district of Lebanon’s southern Nabatieh province said they received text messages from the IDF on Monday, warning them not to allow displaced residents to return to their homes. Israeli forces conducted drone strikes against suspected Hezbollah operatives who tried to enter restricted parts of Nabatieh on Monday.

The IDF has issued periodic warnings to the mayors of Christian villages, telling them not to allow “strangers” who might be Hezbollah fighters into their towns.

The U.N. mission in Lebanon, UNIFIL, said over the weekend that some displaced civilians have begun returning to their villages, and the mission aids them when possible.

“We’re not able to offer support in areas where the situation remains volatile, but we are continuing to remove rubble and unexploded ordnance from roads to allow passage, while supporting municipalities and repairing essential infrastructure such as water and electricity,” said UNIFIL spokeswoman Kandice Ardiel.

“The sooner people can return home, the better for long-term stability,” she said.

The Lebanese Health Ministry has estimated about one-fifth of Lebanon’s population, or more than one million people, have been displaced since Hezbollah launched the conflict by attacking Israel on March 2. Lebanese Social Affairs Minister Haneen El Sayed said on Saturday that about 400,000 displaced persons have returned to their homes.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said last Wednesday that the IDF “will not withdraw from the security zones” it has created in Lebanon and Syria.

“The Israeli army will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza until further notice to protect our residents and communities from jihadist elements,” he said.

Keep reading

Marco Rubio Helps Israel Pursue Goal of Civil War in Lebanon

After President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance committed the United States to a deconfliction cell with Iran in Switzerland – a mechanism enforcing a ceasefire in Lebanon as well as Iran – Israel and its powerful lobby moved instantly to sabotage it. And in a preview of the sorts of foreign policy fissures that will likely define the 2028 GOP primary, the lobby has deployed Secretary of State Marco Rubio as the man to pursue Israel’s interests and pave the way for Israel’s further occupation of Lebanon.

The first article of the 60-day interim agreement signed by the U.S. and Iran conditions an end to the conflict on the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” and on “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.” That second clause, more than any other, appears to be the one Israel is most reluctant to accept.

Despite Israeli withdrawal now required to end a war that now threatens to destabilize the entire global economy, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said that Israel would occupy southern Lebanon indefinitely, stating that “we dominate southern Lebanon, from the summit of the Beaufort, and we will remain as long as required,” adding that “we do not intend to withdraw from it.” Defense Minister Israel Katz meanwhile said there was “no American demand for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon,” and that Israel would not withdraw even if there were one, later telling reporters that southern Lebanon was Israel’s “playground.”

That Iran has set out to secure the complete “territorial integrity” of Lebanon is unacceptable to Israel, which seeks to ethnically cleanse southern Lebanon and possibly further north, with the goal of seizing the land for the Greater Israel Project.

In order to sabotage a deconfliction track outlined in Switzerland and continue their endless project to secure more lebensraum, the Israelis have turned to the U.S. State Department and the Israel Lobby’s man in charge, Marco Rubio, whose spearheaded deconfliction framework was signed by the governments of Israel and Lebanon in Washington on Friday.

Intended to supplant the one announced by Vance – which the Times of Israel reported “infuriated Israel” – Rubio’s agreement strips out the guarantee of Lebanese territorial integrity that Iran insists is necessary to end the war and replaces it with an Israeli wishlist that includes permissions for continued Israeli occupation of a “security zone” and a plan to deputize Lebanese forces to accomplish the likely-impossible objective of “disarming” Hezbollah.

Such an agreement is unacceptable to Hezbollah, which has vowed to keep fighting until Israeli forces leave Lebanon. That is why Israel and Marco Rubio deliberately excluded the group from the deal, producing a “peace deal” between two warring parties to which only one of them agreed.

Indeed, although the deal was pitched by Marco Rubio as “a framework for lasting peace and security,” statements made by Israelis and Hezbollah in recent days reveal that narrative to be nothing more than propaganda designed exclusively for Western audiences. On Israel’s Channel 13 after the signing of the Rubio deal, an Israeli analyst remarked how “it seems we’re leading the state of Lebanon into civil war,” adding “maybe it’s not so bad for us, let the Lebanese government fight Hezbollah.” That was “the goal from the start,” replied his co-host. Lebanese lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah, who is close to Hezbollah, agreed with the Israeli assessment, telling Al-Mayadeen on Friday that Lebanese ​authorities would not be able to enforce the agreement signed ‌in ‌Washington ​on ‌Friday ⁠unless, with ​U.S. backing, “they go ⁠to civil war.”

As John Mearsheimer foresaw in April, “what I think Netanyahu wants to do is to foment civil war in Lebanon, a war with the government on one side and Hezbollah on the other,” describing the strategy as a way of weakening them both. “The Israelis can’t disarm Hezbollah, so they want the Lebanese government to do it.”

In response to questions about the apparent divergence between the Lebanon frameworks pursued by JD Vance and Marco Rubio, the White House has denied that any divisions exist at all. Israel Katz has essentially said the same, admitting that even after Trump linked the Iran and Lebanon tracks and demanded that Israel stop “bringing down buildings in Beirut,” the IDF expanded ground operations north of the Litani River and enlarged its occupation of southern Lebanon, all of it, Katz said, “carried out with U.S. approval.”

Whether the intra-administration split is real or kayfabe, the status quo in Lebanon and its spoiling effect for a peace deal remain the same.

Harrison Berger is a correspondent at The American Conservative. He has contributed to Drop Site News, The Nation, and Responsible Statecraft. Previously, he was a researcher and producer for System Update with Glenn Greenwald. His work focuses on civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy. He studied Political Science and Russian Studies at Union College (NY).

Keep reading

Israel-Lebanon Deal On Life Support: Israel Won’t Withdraw, And Lebanon’s Christians Are Split On Whether It’s A Lifeline Or A Trap

The US-brokered “Trilateral Framework” signed in Washington on June 26 — sold as a “first step toward peace” — is fraying within days. The 14-point deal ties any Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon to the “verified disarmament of non-state armed groups,” a plain reference to Hezbollah. A now-public security annex states: further IDF pullbacks are conditioned on “results, not time” — on “successful completion of agreed upon and verifiable disarmament,” with no withdrawal timeline at all. Israel can therefore stay indefinitely and call it legal.

Netanyahu, visiting troops in the self-declared “security zone” alongside Defense Minister Israel Katz, said Israel “will not leave southern Lebanon until the threat has disappeared”; Katz added they “will not withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. Since disarmament is the precondition for a withdrawal Israel refuses to start, the sequencing seems circular by design. Israeli strikes have continued across the south, the Bekaa, and Beirut’s southern suburbs. Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem branded the deal “null and void,” a “humiliation,” and vowed to keep fighting until Israel leaves — a rejection driven by the Iran-backed militia’s determination to keep its weapons and its war, not by any concern for the Lebanese state.

The Christian angle is where Western coverage flattens a real divide — and it’s worth getting right, because Israel has a documented history of cultivating Lebanese politicians.

On one side, Samir Geagea’s Lebanese Forces cheered the pact as “the most significant political step taken by the Lebanese state in half a century.” But Geagea is the most Israel-friendly voice in Lebanese politics — so his enthusiasm should be weighed accordingly, not taken as the Christian consensus.

The Free Patriotic Movement, Lebanon’s second largest Christian party, founded by former President Michel Aoun and led by Gebran Bassil, did not celebrate but seems open to finding a way forward. Bassil’s verdict: the agreement “is beneficial if we regain all our rights, and dangerous if it is a recipe for strife,” demanding “responsible engagement.” The party said it backs “a comprehensive and lasting peace” but that peace “cannot be achieved through surrendering to Israeli demands or sacrificing Lebanese rights,” warning the framework “lacks guarantees for Israeli withdrawal” and that its use of “redeployment” instead of withdrawal leaves “the door open for the continuation of the occupation.”

Keep reading

Who’s the Weak Link? The New York Times Strikes Again

I love getting The New York Times daily summary of the news. It makes for great hilarity.

Here’s today’s example:

Top News
Lebanon Emerges as Weak Link in U.S.-Iran Deal to End War

The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, once seen as a secondary front to the American-Israeli war on Iran, has become one of the main obstacles to ending it.

It’s not Lebanon that’s the weak link here – it’s Israel.

Israel is the attacker. The aggressor. The country that wants to scupper the MOU between the USA and Iran. Everyone knows this – except the NYT, apparently.

I like too how the NYT describes it as the “American-Israeli war on Iran.” At the very least, it should be Israeli-American war of aggression against Iran.

And when was Lebanon a “secondary front” to the USA? America has no desire to seize land and water in southern Lebanon. That goal is entirely Israel’s, as is its fight against Hezbollah, which is responding to Israeli aggression.

The Iran War has been a huge loser (to put it in Trumpian terms) for the U.S., and only Israel seeks to prolong it. Again, who’s the weak link in the U.S.-Iran deal to end the war?

I’ve been playing with Trumpian language to describe the Iran War and its outcome. As Trump might say, it’s been a defeat for America the likes of which we’ve never seen before. No other defeat comes close.

I think Trump finally understands that. The question is, will “weak link” Israel let him withdraw or will the war become even more catastrophic?

Keep reading

The $300 Billion Mirage: How the U.S.-Iran Deal is destined to fail because Israel won’t stop the bloodshed in Lebanon

Vice President JD Vance told CBS News that Iran “could have access” to a $300 billion reconstruction fund, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition, provided they “honor their end of the obligation.” Trump immediately denounced reports of a $300 billion payment as “Fake News, put out by the Dumocrats,” writing on Truth Social that “Iran has agreed to never have a Nuclear Weapon!”

This contradiction between the administration’s messaging and the reality of the deal raises serious concerns. The fund, as described by Vance, would be a massive financial injection into an Iranian economy that has been crippled by sanctions, a move that critics argue could free up resources for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump insists the deal is about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but the timing is suspicious. Commercial oil inventories are already 7 million barrels below the early 2022 trough and declining at a weekly rate of 11 million barrels, according to Barclays analyst Amarpreet Singh.

With the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve releases structured as loans rather than supply additions, the Trump Administration’s energy policies have left the country vulnerable. Now Trump appears to be negotiating from a position of weakness, offering financial lifelines to a regime that has repeatedly violated international agreements.

Israel’s rejection: The most dangerous wildcard

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staked his political future on his relationship with Trump, but that relationship is now a liability. The U.S.-Iran deal leaves the Islamic Republic intact, an unpalatable prospect for Israelis across the political spectrum. Netanyahu, facing an election this fall, must contend with an agreement that effectively legitimizes Iran’s regional influence.

Israeli officials have already declared that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us,” and troops will remain in southern Lebanon despite Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi demanding a full Israeli withdrawal as part of the deal. The situation is dangerously volatile: Iran has linked the deal’s survival to Israeli compliance, while Israel has made clear it will pursue its own security interests.

If Netanyahu feels cornered politically, a preemptive strike against Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities could trigger the exact scenario the deal is supposed to prevent. Iran has shore batteries on the islands of Hormuz and Abu Musa, missile launchers in Bandar Abbas and Jask, and the capability to block the strait within hours. The Houthis have already demonstrated in the Red Sea how easily a determined adversary can disrupt global shipping with relatively primitive weapons. Iran’s arsenal is far more sophisticated, including seaborne drones and missiles that could sink any ship attempting to navigate through. History shows that these people refuse to capitulate to one another, and years of resentment and distrust and the war in 2026 have only renewed the hatred toward one another. The U.S. Iran Deal seeks a  buyout to keep the peace, but the deal will be temporary like all the others that followed it.

Keep reading

Israel And Hezbollah Trade Fire In Southern Lebanon, Deaths On Both Sides, Israeli Media Goes After Trump, Vance Cancels Swiss Iranian Negotiation Trip As Violence Rages, Iran Says Deal In Jeopardy

Hezbollah fired missiles into Northern Israel yesterday, which were intercepted by Israeli missile systems. Israeli leadership responded angrily to the U.S.-Iran peace deal as the IDF continued operations in Southern Lebanon. Multiple Israeli soldiers were killed south of Beirut as Israeli forces continue to consolidate positions and go after Shia proxy army targets in the south. The IDF continues to be challenged by FPV drones, which are effective against armor and infantry in southern Lebanon.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz rages on Israeli TV:

“Nobody can tell us what to do, and we’ve proven it. The entire first line of Lebanese villages has been destroyed.  We are destroying all the houses. The residents will never see them standing before their eyes again.

“In Lebanon, the 200,000 residents who lived in the “security zone” are not returning.  Not one of them is returning.

“We are fighting there. We do not need al-Julani. Al-Julani, the terrorist in a suit, does not need to come and help us. We know Syria well. He is not going to help us in Lebanon. He should stay in Syria, not interfere with us, and not make us interfere with him.

“Do you know what really hurts the jihadists? Maybe it hurts them when you kill them personally, but they don’t care as much about that.  What really hurts them is when you take territory from them and destroy their homes—and that’s what we did.

“You remember the raids? They would go in and come out.  We go in, destroy, and do not leave. That’s what we’re doing now in Lebanon

“The IDF must be on the other side of the border, beyond the border, defending the State of Israel against jihadist organizations in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Gaza. We will not move from the “security zones”—not in Syria, not in Gaza, and not in Lebanon.

“Why are we on the other side in Syria?  Because we need to be there to protect ourselves against what we see in Syria.

“We are already in more than 60% of Gaza, and all of it is destroyed. It is destroyed above ground and underground. That is the difference in the approach we introduced.”

Keep reading

Deal Doubts Arise As Lebanese, Iranian Officials Say US Must Rein In Israel To Secure Regional Peace

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, held a call earlier, urging the U.S. to compel Israel to end its bloody war on Lebanon, stop home demolitions, and withdraw from occupied Lebanese territory, according to Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency.

Iranian officials earlier said that any agreement with the US aimed at peace requires Israel to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon. 

AA continued:

The call came during a phone call between Berri and Qalibaf in which they discussed the latest regional developments following a US-Iran agreement to end their war all on fronts, including Lebanon, according to the Lebanese state news agency NNA.

The two officials also reviewed “the military and political developments related to the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, particularly the clause concerning ending the Israeli war on Lebanon,” the agency said.

They stressed “the need for the United States, the guarantors of the memorandum of understanding and the international community to assume their responsibilities by compelling Israel to end its war, stop demolishing villages, respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and immediately withdraw from the territories it has occupied.”

Meanwhile, I24NEWS Hebrew reporter Guy Azriel wrote on X, “I can now confirm that Israel formally requested access to the Iran MoU and was denied. A remarkable and highly unusual development between close allies on an issue of such critical national security importance.”

Keep reading