BEIRUT — The U.S. government’s pressure campaign against Hezbollah is not new, but the tone has arguably become sharper recently.
In a recent meeting with Lebanese officials, a US representative warned that if Lebanon did not cooperate in “depleting” Hezbollah’s funding, particularly by targeting institutions such as al-Qat al-Hassan, Israel would “act on its own.”
What is surprising is not the threat itself, but the willingness of some Lebanese politicians to embrace it. Their reactions highlight a deeper and more dangerous dynamic, where Western-backed media normalizes the process while local complicity fosters attacks from outside.
Rep. Nadhim Gemayel’s response summed up this trajectory. When he said, “We’ve been waiting for this moment for 40 years,” he wasn’t just expressing a personal opinion.
Gemayel is the grandson of Bashir Gemayel, the notorious wartime leader who openly collaborated with the Israeli regime and sought normalization during the 1982 occupation.
Its legacy is not a historical footnote. It is the ideological backbone of a political camp that continues to see foreign intervention as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Today, that legacy is re-emerging through politicians who see external pressure on the resistance as a strategic tool to reshape the Lebanese domestic situation.
This action has consequences. For years, Lebanese officials have provided distorted accounts, exaggerations and outright fabrications to Western embassies, hoping to weaponize foreign power against domestic rivals.
These stories travel from the salons of Beirut to think tanks in Washington, to diplomats in Europe, and finally to Tel Aviv, where they are repackaged as “evidence” to justify sanctions, military escalation, and the political isolation of the resistance.
President Michel Aoun once warned that Lebanese were “spreading poison to the United States,” a word many ignored at the time but now seems prescient. What Aoun described is not a marginal phenomenon. It’s a structural trend.
Equally alarming is the role of Western capital’s media institutions in reverberating, purifying, and amplifying these discourses. Their reporting has always been consistent with the embassy’s talking points, including denigrating the resistance, justifying American intervention, and presenting Israeli threats as a rational result of Lebanese “misbehavior.”
With subsidies, workshops, and diplomatic access, these media outlets create a soft consensus that foreign pressure is necessary and inevitable.
Together, these forces are pushing Lebanon toward a moment of extreme danger. They are chipping away at national sovereignty, emboldening Israel’s enemies and tearing apart domestic unity at a time when regional tensions are already at a boil. The stakes are no longer just political. They are existential.
As Lebanon celebrates its independence day on November 22nd, it is facing new challenges to its sovereignty in the area of culture. Casino de Liban’s decision to mark the occasion with three performances by French singer Kendji Gilac has sparked intense controversy.
Gilak’s public positions and associations reflect a clear sympathy for the entity of Israel, and many Lebanese have questioned how a national holiday rooted in liberation and dignity can feature an artist who aligns with a narrative hostile to both.
Independence Day is not a neutral festival. It is a symbol of resistance to French occupation and Western hegemony.
Hosting an artist who, through statements and affiliations, justifies the very existence responsible for decades of aggression against Lebanon, calls into question the moral and historical meaning of the day. This issue goes beyond artistic taste.