destroying towns and villages, and forcing their inhabitants into exile
Along Lebanon's southern reaches, a ceasefire that existed only on paper has given way to open escalation, with Israeli forces advancing beyond the Litani River and airstrikes reshaping entire towns into absence. Lebanon's prime minister stands in the difficult posture of condemning the destruction while defending the negotiations he believes may be the only path through it. More than three thousand lives have been lost since March, and the question now is not whether the old agreement can be salvaged, but whether something new can be built before the cost becomes irreversible.
- A ceasefire declared on April 17 has never been observed — both Israel and Hezbollah cite the other's violations to justify their own, leaving the agreement functionally dead.
- Israeli forces have pushed beyond the Litani River deeper into Lebanese territory, while airstrikes and evacuation orders continue to empty southern villages of their populations.
- Hezbollah launched more than 25 projectiles toward northern Israel on Saturday alone, with air raid sirens sounding in Karmiel and Safed for the first time since the ceasefire was supposed to begin.
- Lebanon's prime minister calls the campaign 'scorched-earth collective punishment' while simultaneously defending US-brokered military talks as 'the least costly path' forward.
- Washington-mediated negotiations are scheduled to resume next week, but the US statement after Friday's talks made no mention of the original ceasefire — signaling that any resolution must be built from scratch.
On Saturday morning, Lebanon's Prime Minister Nawaf Salam appeared on television to accuse Israel of a deliberate war of erasure against his country's south — destroying towns, displacing civilians, and inflicting what he called collective punishment that would bring security to no one. His words came one day after Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israeli forces had crossed beyond the Litani River, roughly 20 miles north of the border, framing the advance as progress against Hezbollah. Salam framed it as a march toward catastrophe.
Yet even as he condemned the campaign, Salam defended his government's decision to keep talking. Military delegations from both countries had met in Washington the day before, and more talks were scheduled for the following week. He offered no guarantees, only the argument that negotiation remained 'the least costly path.' It was a precarious position — denouncing the war while wagering that diplomacy could still stop it.
The ceasefire that had officially taken effect on April 17 was already a fiction. Neither side had observed it; each accused the other of violations and justified its own strikes as responses. The US statement after Friday's talks made no mention of the original agreement at all, suggesting it had quietly been abandoned in favor of whatever might emerge next week.
On the ground, the fighting continued without pause. Lebanese state media reported multiple Israeli airstrikes across the south, evacuation warnings were issued near Nabatieh, and two Lebanese soldiers were wounded by a drone. Hezbollah claimed it was engaged in active clashes around three southern towns and had not yet ceded those positions. More than 25 projectiles were launched toward northern Israel, sending air raid sirens across Karmiel and Safed for the first time since the ceasefire was supposed to begin.
The human toll had been building for months — Lebanon's health ministry counted more than 3,371 killed since March 2, when Hezbollah drew the country into the broader conflict. What had begun as a proxy exchange had grown into something far larger, with Lebanon's civilian population caught between two militaries showing no sign of withdrawal. The negotiations ahead would test whether the space between condemnation and compromise could hold long enough to matter.
On Saturday morning, Lebanon's prime minister went on television with a stark accusation: Israel was waging a war of erasure against his country's south. Nawaf Salam used the phrase "scorched-earth policy," language that carries the weight of deliberate, systematic destruction. He said Israel was not just attacking military targets but destroying entire towns and villages, forcing their residents to flee. This was collective punishment, he argued, and it would bring neither security nor stability to anyone.
The timing of his words mattered. Just the day before, Benjamin Netanyahu had announced that Israeli forces had pushed beyond the Litani River—a line roughly 20 miles north of the border—and were now deeper inside Lebanon than they had been in weeks. Netanyahu framed it as progress in hitting Hezbollah. Salam framed it as an escalation toward catastrophe. He called the situation "dangerous" and pleaded for what he called "a swift and real ceasefire."
Yet even as Salam condemned the military campaign, he defended his government's decision to keep talking to Israel. Military delegations from both countries had met in Washington the day before, brokered by the United States. More talks were scheduled for the following week. Salam acknowledged the talks offered no guarantees, but he called them "the least costly path for our country and our people." It was a delicate position: denouncing the war while betting that negotiation could stop it.
The ceasefire itself was already a ghost. It had officially taken effect on April 17, but neither side had ever truly observed it. Both Israel and Hezbollah accused the other of violations and justified their own attacks as responses to those breaches. The US statement after Friday's military talks made no mention of the original ceasefire agreement at all, focusing instead on the "productive" nature of the discussions and what they might inform about next week's political negotiations. The implication was clear: the old agreement was dead, and something new might be negotiated in its place.
On the ground, the fighting continued without pause. Lebanon's state news agency reported multiple Israeli airstrikes across the south on Saturday. The Israeli military issued fresh evacuation warnings for villages near Nabatieh and in the eastern part of the country. Two Lebanese soldiers were seriously wounded by an Israeli drone near Nabatieh. Hezbollah announced it had launched multiple attacks targeting northern Israel and was engaged in clashes with Israeli troops around three towns in the south—Zawtar al-Sharqiyah, Yohmor al-Shaqif, and Dibbine. The group claimed Israeli forces had not yet taken control of these positions.
The scale of the bombardment was visible in the numbers. More than 25 projectiles were launched from Lebanon toward Israel on Saturday alone. Air raid sirens sounded in the northern Israeli cities of Karmiel and Safed for the first time since the ceasefire was supposed to begin. Video footage showed rockets falling into the sea off Nahariya, near the border, sending beachgoers running from the water.
The human toll had been accumulating for months. Lebanon's health ministry counted more than 3,371 people killed by Israeli attacks since March 2, when Hezbollah first drew the country into the broader Middle East conflict in support of Iran. The war itself had begun on February 28, when Hezbollah said it was retaliating for the death of Iran's supreme leader in strikes carried out by the United States and Israel. What had started as a proxy exchange had metastasized into something larger, with Lebanon's civilian population caught between two militaries that showed no sign of stepping back.
Salam's plea for a ceasefire and his simultaneous defense of ongoing talks suggested a government trying to navigate an impossible situation: how to oppose a war that was destroying your country while also maintaining the diplomatic channels that might eventually end it. The negotiations scheduled for the following week would test whether that balance could hold, or whether the fighting would simply continue until one side or the other decided the cost had become unbearable.
Notable Quotes
This will bring neither security nor stability to Israel— Nawaf Salam, Lebanon's Prime Minister, on the consequences of Israel's military operations
The least costly path for our country and our people— Nawaf Salam, describing ongoing US-brokered negotiations with Israel
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When Salam says Israel is pursuing a "scorched-earth policy," is he describing military strategy or something else?
He's describing the effect, not necessarily the intent. Whether Israel is deliberately trying to erase towns or whether that's the consequence of how they're fighting—the result for Lebanese civilians is the same. Entire places are being destroyed, and people are leaving.
But he's still negotiating with Israel. How does that work when you're accusing them of collective punishment?
It's the only leverage he has. He can't stop the fighting alone. The US is in the room, and talking is the only path that doesn't lead to more death. He's trying to make the case that this war is unsustainable for everyone.
The ceasefire has been dead since April. Why does anyone pretend it still exists?
Because officially ending it means admitting the agreement failed, which means starting from zero. If you keep talking about violations instead, you can frame the next negotiation as a repair rather than a restart.
What does it mean that Israeli forces crossed the Litani River?
It means they're not just defending the border anymore. They're occupying Lebanese territory deeper than before. That's a significant military move, and it changes what "ceasefire" even means.
Over 3,300 people dead since March. Does that number change how you read Salam's speech?
It makes his call for talks sound both more urgent and more fragile. He's running out of time. Every day the fighting continues, that number grows.