French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot on Thursday called for Lebanon not to be used as a "scapegoat" after Israeli strikes on Wednesday killed 182 people and wounded 890, according to reports by Lebanese health authorities.
Issued on: 09/04/2026 - RFI
“We strongly condemn these massive strikes," Barrot told French broadcaster France Inter.
The strikes formed the most intense bombardment of the Lebanese capital since the start of the war with the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah on 2 March.
The Lebanese health ministry reported that 182 people were killed and 890 wounded.
"Yes, Iran must stop terrorising Israel through Hezbollah, which must be disarmed without fail and return these weapons to the Lebanese state," Barrot said. "But no, Lebanon must not be the scapegoat for a government upset because a ceasefire has been reached between the United States and Iran."
United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres warned that Israeli strikes on Lebanon could jeopardise the US-Iran truce, his spokesperson said in a statement.
"The ongoing military activity in Lebanon poses a grave risk to the ceasefire and the efforts toward a lasting and comprehensive peace in the region. The secretary-general reiterates his call to all parties to immediately cease hostilities."
Lebanon was pulled into the war after Hezbollah targeted Israel in retaliation for its strikes on Iran.
While Iran and the US agreed to a two-week ceasefire on Tuesday, Israel insisted that Lebanon was not part of the truce.
Hezbollah responded by saying it had fired rockets towards Israel, and Iran's parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf appeared to threaten the ceasefire.
"The secretary-general strongly condemns the loss of civilian lives and is deeply alarmed by the mounting toll on civilians," the UN spokesperson added. "There is no military solution to the conflict. The secretary-general continues to call on all sides to avail themselves of diplomatic channels."
International condemnation
The UN's human rights chief and the International Committee of the Red Cross have also condemned the strikes.
"Such carnage, within hours of agreeing to a ceasefire with Iran, defies belief," said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk.
French President Emmanuel Macron also joined with calls for Lebanon to be included in the ceasefire.
He urged US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to include Lebanon in the ceasefire the two sides had reached.
"I expressed my hope that the ceasefire will be fully respected by each of the belligerents, across all areas of confrontation, including in Lebanon," Macron said on social media after speaking with both leaders.
British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said on Thursday the United Kingdom wanted to see Lebanon included in the ceasefire in the Middle East.
"I'm deeply troubled about the escalating attacks that we saw from Israel in Lebanon on Wednesday," she told British broadcaster Sky News. "We've seen the humanitarian consequences, the huge mass displacement of people in Lebanon. So we do strongly want to see the ceasefire extended to Lebanon."
(with newswires)
Amid the aftermath of Israel’s “Operation Eternal Darkness,” testimonies, official figures, and Amnesty International’s findings were gathered to highlight Lebanon’s civilian toll, urgent humanitarian crisis, and calls for accountability, protection, and adherence to international law.
Only hours after the ceasefire between the United States and Iran was declared on April 8, Israel initiated one of its largest military offensives in Lebanon since the armed conflict with Hezbollah began on 2 March 2026.
The operation, code-named “Operation Eternal Darkness,” caused immense civilian casualties and represented a sharp escalation in both scope and intensity, with more than 100 strikes carried out within roughly 10 minutes across Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and southern Lebanon.
In light of this alarming development, along with a series of other violations since early March, paying tribute to the victims that have fallen in a war they neither chose nor had a say in becomes crucial, as their tragic deaths cannot be overlooked. Therefore, The Beiruter reached out to some of the victims’ families, relevant authorities, and human rights organizations to gain sincere testimonies as well as valuable insights into the unfolding crisis.
Official figures and emergency response priorities
According to the statement that the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) provided to The Beiruter, the human toll from Wednesday’s Israeli attacks has risen sharply. It stated that 203 people were confirmed dead and more than 1,000 were injured.
The figures underscore the scale of the devastation and the immense strain placed on the country’s already fragile healthcare system.
In its statement, the Ministry stressed that the immediate priority is the continuation of emergency response operations. Efforts remain focused on rescuing individuals still trapped beneath the rubble while ensuring that the injured receive urgent medical care. Authorities are coordinating the transfer of victims across hospitals, distributing cases based on the severity of injuries to maximize the efficiency of treatment and avoid overwhelming specific facilities.
The Ministry also issued a public appeal, urging citizens to limit movement, particularly in densely affected areas of Beirut. It stressed that: “Reducing congestion is critical to enabling ambulances, rescue teams, and emergency personnel to operate without obstruction during this critical phase.”
This reflects both the gravity of the situation and the urgent need for coordinated national response efforts in the face of a rapidly unfolding humanitarian crisis.
Hospitals overwhelmed: scenes reminiscent of “pager” explosions
In the aftermath of the coordinated airstrikes, hospitals across Beirut and beyond were pushed to the brink, echoing scenes not witnessed since the deadly “pager” explosions and the early days of the expanded war. The sudden influx of casualties transformed emergency wards into chaotic spaces where grief, urgency, and uncertainty collided. Indeed, various Lebanese rushed between medical centres and flooded hospital entrances in search of missing relatives.
According to Lebanese Civil Defence, the scale of casualties was staggering, with hundreds killed and more than a thousand wounded across multiple regions, reflecting the widespread impact of the strikes. Moreover, the head of the Beirut Doctors Syndicate, Elias Shalala, appealed to all doctors, each within their specialty, to head to hospitals to provide assistance, in order to perform their medical and humanitarian duties.
Amid the devastation, a parallel scene of solidarity emerged. Blood banks filled with volunteers, many with no personal ties to the victims, responding to urgent calls for donations. This collective response stood in stark contrast to the violence outside, highlighting a society grappling with tragedy yet united in its determination to save lives.
Gabriel Moawwad’s testimony and a call for accountability
In a deeply emotional interview with The Beiruter, Gabriel Moawwad, the son of Pierre Moawwad (head of the Yahchouch center of the Lebanese Forces party) and Flavia Moawwad who were killed in an Israeli airstrike targeting a residential apartment in the Ain Saadeh Hills, recounted the devastating loss of his family, describing them as “victims of the war” caught in circumstances beyond their control. Struggling to comprehend the tragedy, he stressed that
“I do not know how it happened or who decided it. But my family did not decide.”
His grief quickly turned into a broader critique of systemic failure, pointing to weak security structures, poor oversight, and the absence of effective state authority across parts of Lebanon.
Moawwad underscored the consequences of this vacuum, where communities are often left to fend for themselves. He described how, in the absence of state intervention, local residents are forced into roles of protection; responsibilities that should fall under official institutions.
“Beyond mourning, his testimony carried a clear message. He called for the state to assume its responsibilities and ensure security. Failing that, he urged transparency, so citizens can take informed steps to protect themselves.”
The state must take action, and there must be security in the area. And if the state is not able to handle this matter, they should inform us, so that we may act accordingly.
His words reflect both personal sorrow and a growing national demand for responsibility, transparency, and accountability.
Documented violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
In its legal assessment of the conflict to The Beiruter, Amnesty International – Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa identified a sustained pattern of violations by both Israel and Hezbollah not only from March 2026, but even during the previous armed conflict (2023-2024).
The organization pointed to repeated Israeli breaches of core principles of IHL, particularly distinction, proportionality, and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.
“Israel has an appalling track record of carrying out unlawful attacks in Lebanon and displaying a callous disregard for civilian life, fueled by the impunity Israeli officials feel they enjoy.”
Israeli airstrikes on densely populated civilian areas, including in Beirut, have resulted in significant civilian casualties, raising concerns about the failure to adequately distinguish between military targets and protected persons.
The organization also highlighted the widespread issuance of mass evacuation orders, often covering entire regions. Amnesty International stated that: “These warnings do not meet the threshold of ‘effective warnings’ under IHL nor do they relieve Israel of its obligations to protect civilians and take all feasible precautions to minimize harm.”
These measures, combined with large-scale destruction of civilian property and infrastructure, may constitute unlawful forcible displacement. The targeting or endangerment of dozens of healthcare workers and facilities further compounds these violations, as medical personnel remain protected under international law regardless of affiliation.
“Deliberately striking medics performing their humanitarian functions is a serious violation of international humanitarian law and could constitute a war crime.”
At the same time, Amnesty International had also documented Hezbollah’s unlawful firing of unguided, inherently inaccurate rockets into civilian-populated areas in northern Israel, killing civilians and damaging civilian homes. Similar to those attributed to Israel, the organization has stated that
“Such attacks are indiscriminate and unlawful and must be investigated as war crimes.”
Protecting civilians and ensuring accountability
Looking ahead, Amnesty International stressed that the immediate priority must be the protection of civilians. All parties are obligated to strictly adhere to IHL by distinguishing between civilians and military objectives, categorically avoiding direct attacks on civilians, refraining from indiscriminate or disproportionate strikes, and taking all feasible precautions to minimize harm. This includes limiting the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in urban settings.
“Failure to uphold these obligations constitutes a serious violation of international law and places civilian lives in imminent danger.”
However, Amnesty underscored that protection alone is insufficient without accountability. It called on the international community to intensify efforts to investigate and prosecute reported violations through domestic, universal, or other forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute crimes under international law.
The organization also urged Lebanese authorities to enable jurisdiction for the International Criminal Court (ICC) over Rome Statute crimes committed on their territory and initiate credible domestic investigations into crimes under international law.
“Ensuring accountability means not only prosecuting suspected perpetrators but also securing effective remedy for victims and taking meaningful steps to guarantee non-repetition.”
In addition, Amnesty called for an immediate suspension of arms transfers to Israel, citing the clear risk of their use in further violations. Ultimately, it argued that accountability is essential not only for justice but also to deter future breaches and uphold the integrity of international law.
To conclude, the events that unfolded in the immediate aftermath of the US-Iran ceasefire underscore a stark reality: while geopolitical agreements may pause conflicts between states, they do not necessarily translate into safety for those on the ground. In Lebanon, civilians once again found themselves at the center of a war they neither initiated nor controlled, bearing the heaviest consequences of decisions made far beyond their reach. Without concrete measures to protect civilians and ensure justice for violations, such cycles of violence are likely to persist. For Lebanon, the question is no longer only about survival in the present, but whether meaningful safeguards can be established to prevent future tragedies from unfolding in the same devastating way.
This article first appeared in the theBeiruter.com here, an IntelliNews media partner.
Israel’s latest war on Lebanon is not only being waged from the air. It is being reinforced politically from within, as Beirut moves in step with US-Israeli efforts to isolate Hezbollah and weaken Iran’s negotiating position.
In a previous article, we examined the seven messages that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to communicate through mass killings in Lebanon.
These messages were aimed at reshaping regional dynamics, asserting deterrence, and forcing new political realities on the ground.
Those massacres have already resulted in hundreds of Lebanese killed and more than a thousand wounded, alongside vast destruction of civilian infrastructure, according to Lebanese civil defense figures.
The scale and intensity of the violence were not incidental, however. They were meant to create urgency, fear, and ultimately, compliance.
At the time, we argued that Israel’s actions were part of a broader attempt to impose a new regional order through blood. Since then, new developments have confirmed that this military escalation was coordinated with parallel political moves—specifically, an effort to separate the Iran-US negotiation track in Pakistan from the war on Lebanon.
This separation is not a technical detail. It is the core of the current geopolitical struggle.
As Israeli bombs continue to fall across Lebanon, Netanyahu announced that he had instructed his government to begin direct negotiations with Lebanon “as soon as possible,” emphasizing that these talks would focus on disarming Hezbollah and establishing “peaceful relations.”
This shift did not occur in a vacuum. It followed one of the deadliest waves of Israeli attacks on Lebanon in years, and it came at a moment when Iran had explicitly linked its participation in the Islamabad talks to a ceasefire in Lebanon.
In other words, Israel escalated militarily while simultaneously opening a political channel designed to bypass Iran’s conditions.
What makes this strategy particularly consequential, however, is not Israel’s role alone—but the response from Beirut.
From the outset of the Israeli war on Lebanon, the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has taken steps that align closely with US and Israeli objectives.
Rather than framing the conflict primarily as Israeli aggression, key Lebanese officials have emphasized the need to rein in the resistance, repeatedly raising the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons and the necessity of placing all arms under state control.
This position is not neutral. It reflects a political choice. More importantly, it creates the very framework that Israel seeks to impose: one in which the central issue is no longer occupation, aggression, or civilian massacres, but rather the “problem” of resistance itself.
The Lebanese government’s willingness to engage in direct negotiations with Israel—something historically avoided outside the narrow framework of indirect or mediated contacts—marks a dangerous precedent.
Even if framed as conditional or tactical, such engagement constitutes an implicit political recognition of Israel at a moment when Lebanese civilians are still being buried under the rubble of Israeli strikes.
This contradiction is not lost on domestic actors.
According to Al Mayadeen, figures affiliated with Hezbollah have sharply criticized the government’s direction, with some describing it as a betrayal of the highest order. The criticism reflects a deeper fear that Lebanon is being pulled into a political track that will ultimately serve to delegitimize the resistance and reshape the country’s internal balance of power.
This concern is reinforced by the sequence of events itself. Lebanon has not yet received a formal date from the United States to begin negotiations, according to Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in Beirut. Lebanese officials have insisted that a ceasefire must precede any talks, yet Israel has made clear that its objective is precisely the opposite: to use negotiations as a tool to impose new realities, including Hezbollah’s disarmament.
At the same moment, Iran has made its stance unmistakably clear. Its delegation has conditioned participation in the Islamabad talks on linking any ceasefire to a full halt of Israeli operations in Lebanon. Iranian officials have gone further, emphasizing that no long-term arrangement is possible without ending Israeli aggression altogether.
This creates a direct clash of political visions. On one side, Iran is attempting to integrate Lebanon into a broader regional settlement that preserves the role of resistance as a central actor. On the other hand, the United States, Israel, and their regional allies are working to fragment that framework—isolating Lebanon, sidelining Hezbollah, and reasserting a US-led order.
In this context, the behavior of the Lebanese government cannot be understood as independent.
Beirut’s political establishment has long operated within a system shaped by external pressures, particularly from Washington and its regional allies. The current moment is no exception. The push toward negotiations, the emphasis on disarmament, and the political framing of the conflict all reflect a broader alignment with the pro-American camp.
This camp is facing a strategic dilemma. Its inability to impose a decisive outcome on Iran—whether militarily or economically—has already shifted the balance of power. The Strait of Hormuz crisis, the resilience of the Iranian state, and the failure to neutralize Hezbollah have all exposed the limits of US influence.
Allowing Lebanon to be included in an Iran-led negotiating framework would deepen that shift.
It would effectively marginalize pro-Western actors in Beirut and open the door to a new regional arrangement in which Iran holds significant leverage. For Washington, Tel Aviv, and their allies, this is an unacceptable outcome.
Thus, the current strategy: bombard Lebanon, then rush into negotiations with the Lebanese government itself.
This dual approach is not contradictory. It is deliberate. The massacres create pressure. The negotiations create an alternative political pathway—one that excludes Iran and reframes the conflict around disarmament and normalization.
Crucially, both Israel and segments of the Lebanese political establishment share a common objective: the weakening, and ultimately the defeat, of Hezbollah. Direct talks are only the first step.
In the ideal scenario envisioned by the US and Israel, this process would evolve into an international consensus—possibly through the United Nations—that formally delegitimizes Hezbollah and, by extension, all forms of armed resistance. Such a shift would not only reshape Lebanon internally but would also strike at the core of the broader resistance axis.
But such scenarios rarely unfold as planned.
The main obstacle remains Iran’s insistence on linking Lebanon to any broader agreement. As long as this linkage holds, attempts to isolate Lebanon will face significant resistance—not only from Tehran but from actors within Lebanon itself.
The outcome of this struggle will not be confined to Lebanon.
It will determine whether the region moves toward a fragmented order dominated by US-backed states, or toward a new balance in which resistance movements and their allies retain a decisive role.
No comments:
Post a Comment