When the Lebanese were flooded with torrents of fiery promises and seismic threats, they were told that the Galilee was within reach of the Radwan units, that the ammonia tank in Haifa would be wiped out, and that the towers of Tel Aviv and the buildings of the Israeli prime minister’s office and Ministry of Defense would not withstand zero hour.
Minds were charged with the rhetoric of “deterrence” and “changing the rules of engagement,” as if the coming war would be a display of power rather than a test of survival. But the moment of truth came entirely opposite: no incursion, no strategic strikes, no images of victory—only the systematic assassination of first-, second-, and third-tier leaders, culminating in two secretaries-general, while the south was destroyed, the southern suburbs were laid bare, and one of the most devastating intelligence blows the party has suffered since its founding was exposed.
Everything said about readiness evaporated, and everything promoted about a “target bank” proved to be rhetoric for domestic consumption. The party that claimed to hold the initiative was exposed as incapable even of protecting its own leadership. Leaders were tracked, monitored, and assassinated with surgical precision, while the organization remained silent or contented itself with hollow, boilerplate statements that changed nothing in the balance of power. This is neither steadfastness nor strategic patience; it is blatant incapacity wrapped in empty slogans.
More dangerous than the military loss is the pathological denial—denial of defeat, denial of the breach, denial of the human and material cost—as if the party chose to flee forward rather than confront the bitter truth. The south, said to be the first line of defense, was left alone under fire; the suburbs, said to be fortified, turned into an open arena; and the constituency driven into war in the name of “divine victory” is today left to count its staggering losses without acknowledgment or accountability.
Despite all this, Hezbollah stubbornly continues to refuse to hand over its weapons, at a time when Israel is closer than ever to delivering a decisive strike that may leave little of its military structure beyond the name. It refuses because it is unwilling to acknowledge defeat, or because it does not want to relinquish a weapon that is no longer an instrument of resistance but has become a tool of internal power and political blackmail.