By Dr. Sabir Abu Mariam
Secretary General, Palestine Foundation Pakistan
In the aftermath of Israel’s recent aggression against Lebanon and the subsequent ceasefire agreement, violations by the Israeli occupying forces have been increasing day by day. This situation has sparked an important debate among international observers: has Israel truly achieved any success in Lebanon?
Despite the United States and Israel boasting that they had eliminated Hezbollah’s most senior leaders including Syed Hassan Nasrallah and Syed Hashem Safi al-Din and claiming that Hezbollah was finished or greatly weakened, the continued Israeli bombardment of southern Lebanon and other areas raises a simple but critical question: if Hezbollah is defeated, why does Israel still feel the need to keep bombing Lebanon?
Israeli analysts themselves are calling the ongoing situation in Lebanon a dangerous and uncertain stage. They suggest that Israel is trying to turn the current tension into an “opportunity” one that could finally weaken or disarm Hezbollah. However, such assessments only expose the hollowness of earlier American and Israeli claims of victory.
The political and social balance within Lebanon clearly shows that Hezbollah continues to enjoy broad public support and remains strong on the political front. Acknowledging this reality, former Israeli Major General Tamir Hayman recently admitted that Israel’s continued airstrikes in southern Lebanon are not a viable strategy. “Bombs can destroy buildings,” he said, “but they cannot destroy ideas or beliefs.” Hayman emphasized that while Israel may eliminate individuals or infrastructure, it cannot eliminate ideology.
The recent Israeli operations in Lebanon, therefore, reveal more about Israel’s own strategic frustration than any actual military achievement. In contrast, the resistance has demonstrated resilience learning from experience, reorganizing, and preparing for the next stage.
Israeli and Western analysts alike now concede that Hezbollah, despite facing an intense military campaign, has managed to reorganize its forces and restore its logistical networks. Reports from the field indicate that supply routes, local networks, and stockpiles are being re-established, a development that Western observers view with growing concern. This proves that airstrikes alone cannot resolve Israel’s security dilemma in Lebanon.
The recent Israeli attack on the town of Blida (30 October 2025) and the subsequent directive by President Joseph Aoun, ordering the Lebanese army to respond to any future Israeli incursions, have further escalated tensions. The Lebanese president’s decision, along with Hezbollah’s firm political stance, demonstrates that the confrontation is far from over. Ironically, Israel’s aggression has pushed many Lebanese factions closer together, fostering renewed calls for unity against foreign aggression.
Lebanon’s government and army are under significant international pressure to restrict Hezbollah’s access to weapons in southern regions or to remove certain storage sites. However, internal political sensitivities, limited resources, and the fear of internal conflict have made such measures difficult to implement. The Lebanese army, therefore, is largely confined to maintaining balance between rival political groups rather than taking a side.
There is also growing evidence of American involvement in Lebanon’s internal political dynamics. While the U.S. and Israel attempt militarily to weaken Hezbollah, they are simultaneously working to isolate it politically using alliances with certain Lebanese groups to challenge Hezbollah’s legitimacy. Yet, despite these combined military and political efforts, both Washington and Tel Aviv have failed to achieve their objectives.
Unable to defeat Hezbollah directly, Israel and its allies now appear focused on weakening Lebanon from within inciting political fragmentation, encouraging military entanglement, and sustaining instability through indirect interventions. Analysts warn that this dangerous strategy risks dragging Lebanon into prolonged internal strife, the consequences of which could destabilize the entire Middle East.
Lasting peace in Lebanon and across the region cannot be achieved through air campaigns or coercion. Military action may yield short-term gains, but it does not address the root causes of conflict: occupation, the regional security imbalance, and continuous foreign interference. International actors must therefore prioritize diplomacy, reconstruction, and political inclusion over military pressure.
Israel is chasing an illusion of victory, a mirage that blinds it to the deeper political and social realities of Lebanon. Hezbollah, despite suffering losses, continues to rebuild and reassert itself both militarily and politically. True peace can only come through respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty, genuine political engagement, and international economic support, not through bombs and assassinations.
After spending billions of dollars, the U.S. and Israel have achieved nothing tangible in Lebanon they have destroyed buildings and killed leaders, but they have not defeated the idea. The faith, ideology, and determination of Hezbollah and of Lebanon’s resistance remain alive, ready, and stronger than ever.
That enduring spirit is itself the clearest evidence of Israel’s and America’s strategic failure.
