Lebanon entered 2025 in the aftermath of an Israeli aggression that failed to achieve its declared objectives, despite leaving widespread destruction, particularly in the south. With the cessation of military operations in late November 2024, a new reality began to take shape—one defined above all by the steadfastness of the resistance and its people in the face of continued Israeli attacks, as the Lebanese state remains awaited to fulfill its long-overdue responsibilities, foremost among them protecting its citizens from persistent Israeli hostility.
Return to the South: A Defiant Message
Within hours of the ceasefire, southern Lebanon witnessed a rapid and large-scale return of residents to their villages and towns. The scene delivered a swift and unmistakable message: the failure of displacement policies, the collapse of attempts to break willpower and the spirit of resistance, and the frustration of one of the central objectives of the Israeli assault. Residents did not wait for state plans, compensation schemes, or reconstruction promises. They returned to homes that were partially or completely destroyed, affirming that there would be no retreat and no relinquishment of even a grain of land sanctified by the blood of martyrs.
Continued Israeli Violations Under US Cover
In parallel, the Israeli killing machine did not come to a halt. Backed by a clear American green light, the Israeli enemy reneged on its commitments under the ceasefire declaration with Lebanon and continued its attacks and violations—from border villages in the south, through the Bekaa Valley, and reaching Beirut’s southern suburbs. This reality confirmed that the aggression had not truly ended but had merely entered a new phase, aimed at achieving through pressure and violations what the full-scale war had failed to impose.
Facts on the ground made clear that the aggression failed to meet its core goals: the resistance was not broken, no new security reality was imposed, and no key component of the Lebanese equation was eliminated, contrary to the proclamations of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Throughout the most difficult circumstances, the resistance demonstrated credibility and commitment, adhering to what was required of Lebanon south of the Litani River within the framework of existing understandings. The Israeli occupation, meanwhile, persisted in violating these arrangements. This placed the Lebanese state—and the countries involved in the ceasefire monitoring mechanism—squarely before their responsibilities. The state bears responsibility for its people, while the guarantor states, namely the United States and France alongside UNIFIL, are tasked with exerting pressure on the Israeli enemy to halt its attacks and comply with the agreement.
Political Milestones: Presidency and Government Formation
Politically, the election of Joseph Aoun as President of the Lebanese Republic marked a pivotal milestone. It came as the result of delicate internal balances in which the “national duo” played a clear and decisive role, reflecting a political reality that cannot be bypassed or ignored—despite the ferocious war waged to marginalize this major Lebanese component with broad popular representation.
This constitutional milestone underscored the failure of all internal and external bets on excluding an entire political and social force, particularly one that has sacrificed greatly to protect Lebanon and its sovereignty. Lebanon, it reaffirmed, is governed by realities that cannot be denied or overridden in service of hollow slogans or dubious, hostile agendas.
Following the presidential election, the formation of a new government came within the same context. A cabinet headed by Nawaf Salam was formed with the clear participation of all major national components, foremost among them the national duo. This once again confirmed that exclusion is impossible, despite extensive efforts to redraw the political landscape in the aftermath of the aggression and to extract distorted conclusions about Lebanon’s true balance of power.
Performance Under Scrutiny
This, however, does not preclude raising serious questions about the performance of the government and the authorities more broadly across multiple issues. These range from insufficient pressure to halt Israeli aggression, delays in reconstruction, and inaction on the issue of detainees to controversial decisions regarding the confinement of weapons and steps perceived as offering free services to the enemy. Added to this are pressing socio-economic challenges and what many describe as the “low-level performance” of certain ministers who continue to speak in the language of their isolationist parties rather than in the spirit of collective governmental responsibility and Lebanon’s national interest.
A Historic Farewell, A Renewed Pledge
Amid these rapid and heavy developments, the funeral of the “Supreme Martyr of the Nation,” Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah, alongside his lifelong companion Sayyed Hashem Safieddine, marked a defining moment in Lebanon’s history—particularly for the resistance’s popular base. It sent a clear message to the world: this community is capable of shaking off the dust of aggression and continuing along the path drawn by an exceptional leader in Hezbollah’s history, now under the leadership of Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem.
The million-strong turnout and the high level of discipline and organization—later reinforced by the remarkable Scout and Fatima gatherings—confirmed the depth of popular support and the capacity to manage an event of extraordinary scale at a highly sensitive regional moment. The funeral was not merely a farewell but a renewal of allegiance, carrying multiple and powerful messages. This momentum was further reflected in the exceptional participation and success in consolidating the strong popular representation of the national duo in municipal and local elections.
Maritime Borders and Controversial Decisions
On another front, the issue of maritime border demarcation with Cyprus resurfaced as an extension of Lebanon’s maritime sovereignty file. Official approaches to this sensitive matter lacked transparency and clarity, raising serious questions about its management and underlying motives.
Meanwhile, one of the most controversial moves was what many described as the government’s “grave mistake” in pursuing the confinement of weapons and relinquishing elements of Lebanon’s strength at a time marked by ongoing Israeli aggression and violations. This rendered the decision detached from both the field reality and the prevailing political context.
Reconstruction File: Institutional Failure and Southern Abandonment
Clear shortcomings marked the performance of the authorities and the government on reconstruction, whether in planning, funding, or coordination. This failure obstructed the launch of compensation mechanisms and rebuilding efforts, once again leaving the people of southern Lebanon to face their fate alone—echoing painful precedents from earlier chapters of Lebanon’s modern history. The absence of a coherent national reconstruction strategy deepened social and economic wounds and reinforced perceptions of neglect toward the most affected regions.
Expanding Negotiations: A Controversial Shift
Before the end of 2025, controversy intensified over the expansion of negotiations with the Israeli enemy through the appointment of a civilian figure, Simon Karam, to head the Lebanese delegation to the ceasefire “mechanism” committee. The move was widely viewed as a gratuitous concession to the enemy, as Lebanon received nothing in return. Critics argued that the step violated basic principles of negotiation and projected an image of compliance with American pressure—pressure seen as carrying Israeli demands and interests rather than safeguarding Lebanese rights.
A Year After the Aggression: An Ongoing and Painful Transition
In conclusion, while 2025 is indeed the year following the large-scale Israeli aggression on Lebanon, it also represents a station within a broader and ongoing “painful transition” whose events continue to unfold across the region, not in Lebanon alone. The final contours of this phase have yet to crystallize, and the coming weeks, months, or even years may be required to shape the ultimate outcome.
Amid this uncertainty, hope remains pinned on a near relief—an exit from the cycle of arrogance and injustice imposed by the axis of aggression led by the United States, with the Israeli entity serving as its executive arm in the region.
Source: Al-Manar Website