Subscribe
There is one point that must be made clearly, without ambiguity: Israel has the full right to defend itself. Faced with the threat posed by Hezbollah—a militia backed by Iran and structurally committed to Israel’s destruction—no responsible government could choose inaction. National security is not negotiable, and Europe has for too long adopted a timid, often hypocritical approach to this issue.
But recognizing this principle does not mean suspending judgment on what is happening today in Lebanon. And this is precisely where the credibility of the West is at stake: in its ability to distinguish between legitimate self-defense and operational overreach.
Today, while diplomacy speaks of negotiations and even the possibility of a ceasefire, the reality on the ground tells a different story: Israeli bombardments continue, intensify, and are hitting not only military targets but also civilian areas. This contradiction—ceasefire invoked, war pursued—is what makes the situation not only unstable, but politically unsustainable.
A war that goes beyond the military perimeter
Israel maintains that it is targeting Hezbollah infrastructure: weapons depots, command centers, logistical networks. And it is plausible that a significant portion of these targets are indeed military. However, evidence gathered by international observers and independent agencies indicates that the impact of these strikes is far broader.
Residential buildings, urban neighborhoods, ambulances, healthcare facilities: the operational theater has expanded. This is no longer a surgical war, but a conflict that is engulfing civilian society as a whole. And this fundamentally changes the political judgment.
International humanitarian law is not a technical detail: it is the foundation that distinguishes a democratic state from an actor operating without constraints. If that boundary weakens, so does the moral legitimacy of military action.
The numbers: a nation on the move
The figures are unequivocal. Since the latest escalation began, around 1,700 people have been killed in Lebanon and more than one million displaced. In a country of just over five million inhabitants, this means that one in five people has been forced to leave their home.
This is not a number that can be trivialized. It is a systemic crisis.
Lebanon, already devastated by years of economic collapse, runaway inflation, and institutional paralysis, now stands on the brink. Hospitals are under extreme pressure, medical supplies are running out, and infrastructure is damaged or destroyed. This is not just a war—it is a potential breaking point for the Lebanese state.
And here another political issue emerges: a destabilized Lebanon is not a victory for anyone, not even for Israel. It is a vacuum that other actors—above all Iran—are ready to fill.
The UNIFIL incident: a breaking point with Italy
The situation became even more delicate following an incident directly involving Italian troops serving in the UNIFIL mission. Gunfire from Israeli positions struck near an Italian convoy, in an operational context that should have been under international protection. Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto described the episode as “serious and unacceptable,” demanding immediate clarification from Israel and stressing that UN forces cannot be treated as a secondary element on the ground. On the same line, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni called the incident a “clear violation” of international rules and ordered the summoning of the Israeli ambassador to Rome. This is a politically significant moment: when Italian soldiers are involved, the issue is no longer purely diplomatic—it becomes national. And it marks a further hardening in relations between a historic ally and a government that, while remaining close to Israel, is not willing to tolerate actions that endanger its armed forces.
Italy’s position: firmness and responsibility
In this context, the line taken by the Italian government led by Giorgia Meloni appears among the clearest in Europe. There is no ambiguity about Israel’s right to self-defense. But there is also no silence in the face of what is happening.
Meloni has described the attacks as “unacceptable” and has called for them to cease immediately, highlighting the now unsustainable number of civilian victims and displaced persons. This is not an ideological break, but a position of political responsibility: supporting an ally does not mean accepting everything it does.
This is, ultimately, the difference between alliance and subordination.
Italy, also in light of its military presence in the UNIFIL mission, cannot afford ambiguity. Israel’s security is a Western interest. But so is the stability of Lebanon and the respect for minimum rules of engagement.
The European risk: migration and instability
Those who believe this is a distant crisis are making a strategic mistake. Europe is directly exposed.
One million displaced people in Lebanon means potential migratory pressure. It means new routes across the Mediterranean, new departures, new flows that are difficult to manage. This is not a theoretical scenario—it is a pattern we have already seen.
There is also another element: Lebanon hosts hundreds of thousands of refugees, particularly Syrians and Palestinians. If the system collapses further, it will not only be Lebanese citizens who move, but also these already vulnerable communities.
Once again, a Middle Eastern crisis becomes a European issue.
The risk of escalation: a war that could expand
The key question now is what will happen in the coming weeks. Lebanon is not an isolated front, but part of a much wider regional system. Hezbollah is one of the main instruments of Iran’s strategic projection, and any weakening—or uncontrolled reaction—could draw Tehran directly into the confrontation.
In this scenario, the logic of deterrence risks failing: the more Israel intensifies its strikes to neutralize the threat, the greater the likelihood of a large-scale response. This dynamic has been seen in other theaters, but here it carries far greater explosive potential.
An open war between Israel and Hezbollah, with direct or indirect Iranian involvement, would no longer be a local crisis but a regional conflict with global consequences—from energy markets to international security. And it is precisely to avoid this scenario that the diplomatic window, however fragile and contradictory it may be, cannot be allowed to close completely.
A fragile, perhaps illusory ceasefire
The paradox of these days is clear. On one hand, there is talk of negotiations, diplomatic openings, even a possible ceasefire. On the other, the bombardments continue and intensify.
A ceasefire is not a declaration—it is a fact. And today, in the skies over Lebanon, it is nowhere to be seen.
The real risk is that diplomacy is being used as political cover while the reality on the ground moves in the opposite direction. If that is the case, the window for de-escalation will close rapidly, giving way to a far more dangerous scenario: a broader regional war.
The political point: supporting Israel without abandoning judgment
If the European right wants to be credible, it must move beyond binary thinking. This is not about choosing between Israel and Lebanon, between security and rights, between alliance and criticism.
It is about holding two truths together.
First: Israel has the right—and the duty—to defend itself against Hezbollah and terrorism.
Second: this right is not unlimited. When military action produces one million displaced people, strikes civilian infrastructure, and risks destabilizing an entire country, the issue cannot be ignored.
This is precisely the point raised by Giorgia Meloni: not a rupture, but a call for limits.
Because the strength of a democracy lies not only in its ability to strike its enemy, but in its ability not to lose itself in the process.
And today, in Lebanon, that line appears increasingly thin.