Israeli Airstrikes and Hezbollah Rocket Attacks Escalate Tensions on Lebanon Border

In Lebanon’s complex political landscape, Hezbollah has markedly shifted its rhetorical strategy from defending its own actions to systematically criticizing the Lebanese state, analysts observe. The militant group increasingly uses political and media platforms to portray state authorities as incompetent and complicit with external powers while positioning itself as a neutral arbiter in national affairs.

Hezbollah routinely references unfulfilled commitments from President Joseph Aoun’s 2025 inaugural speech and subsequent ministerial statements, focusing on promises to secure the release of prisoners from Israeli jails, reclaim occupied territories, halt Israeli aggression, and accelerate reconstruction efforts. The organization frames these perceived failures as evidence of the state’s broader inability to fulfill its national responsibilities.

This narrative, however, deliberately obscures critical context. The Lebanese state operates within significant constraints and according to a clearly established roadmap that prioritizes centralizing weapons under state authority. International supporters, whose financial aid is essential for Lebanon’s reconstruction and economic recovery, have explicitly conditioned their assistance on the legalization of arms and consolidation of military and security decisions under state control.

“Without these conditions in place, any discussion about the state’s responsibilities remains largely theoretical,” notes one political observer familiar with Lebanon’s governance challenges. “The state cannot act independently while parallel military structures exist.”

Even if one accepts the premise that the Lebanese state has failed to fulfill its promises—warranting increased political accountability—this standard must be applied consistently to all political actors, including Hezbollah itself.

Critics point to multiple instances where the organization’s actions have fallen short of its rhetoric. Hezbollah has drawn Lebanon into major military confrontations under ambitious slogans like “destroy Israel” without achieving stated objectives. Thousands of young people have been deployed to battlefields ostensibly to “liberate Jerusalem,” while the city itself remained unaffected by these campaigns.

During the recent conflict, tens of thousands of Lebanese citizens were uprooted from their villages and towns in southern Lebanon, supposedly in service of “expelling Israel from Galilee”—a promise that remains unfulfilled. The human and economic costs have been staggering, with widespread displacement, destruction, and economic collapse across vast regions of the country.

This contradiction extends to domestic politics as well. For over a decade, Hezbollah has campaigned in parliamentary elections on promises to “Build and Protect,” yet many areas under its influence continue to suffer from infrastructure deficiencies and economic hardship.

The accountability deficit cuts both ways. While the Lebanese state deserves criticism for its institutional weaknesses and limitations, these shortcomings are directly connected to Hezbollah’s maintenance of an independent arsenal, which critics say is frequently wielded domestically to intimidate and pressure whenever state authority challenges the organization’s decision-making autonomy.

“The comparison is unavoidable,” says one Lebanese political analyst who requested anonymity for security reasons. “If a weak state is held accountable for promises it cannot fulfill, how should we judge an organized force with weapons and influence that makes grand promises, only to leave behind wars, displacement, human losses, and mounting crises?”

The failures extend beyond unachieved objectives to encompass the enormous costs incurred in pursuit of these goals. Accountability cannot be selective or one-sided in addressing Lebanon’s complex challenges.

As Lebanon continues to navigate its political and security challenges, many observers suggest that any serious discussion about the country’s future must begin with a foundational principle: one cannot hold others accountable while evading accountability for one’s own actions. Building a functional state requires acknowledging all parties’ shortcomings rather than using criticism of others to deflect from one’s own responsibilities.

This dynamic remains central to understanding Lebanon’s ongoing struggle to establish sovereignty, stability, and governance amid competing internal and external pressures.