The Gazafication of Lebanon (w/Rania Khalek)

The media distracts; the killing goes on.

The situation in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East continues to be horrific. The amount of the devastation that Lebanon, as well as Palestine and other countries have experienced has been neglected, or at “best,” underreported and underemphasized in mainstream Western news media. As a result of that I think a lot of people, even people of goodwill, are overly complacent about what’s going on there. That’s why I want to get the word to you directly from the Middle East.

Rania Khalek is a correspondent with Breakthrough News and host of Dispatches, the video program. She’s based in Beirut, she’s there now, and she knows the specifics of the situation as well or better than anyone I know.

Rania concludes with a specific recommendation. I’ll quote that part of the conversation here (the full transcript is below):

“... Understanding that unconditional support for Israel—particularly the weapons supply—might not continue forever, the Israel lobby and imperialists in the ruling class are trying to move now, while they still can, through quieter, more insidious measures ...

“Look them up—Section 224, Section 622—because these are things you can actually call your members of Congress about. Say: ‘Do not vote for this provision. I do not want my taxpayer money cemented in place to support Israel’s genocidal army indefinitely.’”

US voters can contact their House representative and senators by calling the Capitol Switchboard (202-224-3121) and giving the operator your zip code. You will be connected to your elected officials’ offices.

Please give the interview a listen.

Transcript (lightly edited by AI)

Richard Eskow: Let’s start here, before we get into the politics and diplomacy. As I mentioned, I don’t think people fully grasp the extent of the devastation in Lebanon. In U.S. coverage—and, by extension, in American consciousness—it’s almost treated as an ancillary issue. But I don’t believe people truly understand how much violence has been unleashed there.

So could you give us an overview of what’s happening on the ground? Even if the violence stopped today, I imagine the rebuilding would be massive, the loss of life staggering, the harm already catastrophic. But tell me—what’s the reality?

Rania Khalek: Absolutely, and I appreciate you asking. I imagine that once there’s actually space to survey the damage—because the Israelis are still occupying about a fifth of the country—we’ll have a clearer picture of just how severe the destruction is. But since March 2nd, when Hezbollah entered the war on Iran’s side—and this followed 15 months of constant Israeli bombing of Lebanon, including ceasefire violations from the previous war that never really stopped and went almost entirely ignored in the media—the situation has been catastrophic.

Since March 2nd alone, when Israel dramatically expanded its war on Lebanon, over 3,700 people have been killed. A significant portion—around 14 percent—are children. To put that in perspective, in Ukraine, children make up about 1percent of casualties. So it seems Israel really excels at targeting children.

Throughout this war, Israeli leadership has repeatedly and proudly stated that they are imposing the “Gaza model” on southern Lebanon. And that’s exactly what they’ve done. They’ve occupied about a fifth of the country. They’ve issued displacement orders via X, often in the middle of the night, telling over a million people across Lebanon: leave your home, leave your village, or die. This terrorized people for three straight months.

During that time, the Israelis invaded, occupied large swaths of territory, and subjected the south—but also Beirut, where I am—to relentless bombardment with American taxpayer-funded weapons. I was in a very unique position: having bombs fall around me that were effectively funded by me, because I’m both Lebanese and American.

They specifically and intentionally targeted medics—killing over 133 healthcare workers in Lebanon. They bombed hospitals. They killed at least a dozen journalists, some of whom they hunted down with repeated strikes in what they call “double tap” strikes. They did the same to medical workers. In one case, they carried out a quadruple tap strike.

Let me explain what that means: the Israelis strike once, then wait for people to come treat the wounded and recover the bodies, then strike again—that’s a double tap, designed to maximize casualties. Then a triple tap, then a quadruple tap—four strikes to ensure no one can save the injured. Human rights organizations documented this repeatedly across Lebanon.

And Israeli officials gloated about imposing the Gaza model. They destroyed over 50 villages in Lebanon. And when I say destroyed, I mean they placed bombs in every structure and detonated entire villages at once. You can find wild images of these massive detonations online, but U.S. media largely ignored them. You didn’t see it on CNN. The level of mass destruction of civilian property was horrifying.

They said they were doing this to ensure that Lebanese—specifically Shia Lebanese—never return to the south. They kept saying they wanted to carry out a “Nakba” in southern Lebanon. Nakba refers to what was done to Palestinians in 1948: the forcible expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians across historic Palestine to create a Jewish-majority state of Israel.

Now, Israeli officials like Ben-Gvir are openly saying they want not only to cleanse southern Lebanon of its Lebanese population to create a buffer zone, but ultimately to settle it with Israeli Jews. So you have a formula for southern Lebanon that mirrors what they’re doing in the West Bank and Gaza.

This is what Lebanon has endured for the past three months. And when you hear it framed in U.S. media, it’s always under the umbrella of “security”—Israel has to destroy Lebanon for its security, displace people for its security. The security of the Lebanese is never mentioned, nor the fact that they are being ethnically cleansed. And again, Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that their goal is the permanent forced removal of Shia Lebanese from the south to create a new border at the Litani River—which would eat up about 14 percent of the country.

So yes, it’s been a horrific three months. Recently, the intensity of the violence has decreased dramatically because Iran has been insisting, since the beginning of their negotiations with the Americans, that Lebanon be included in any ceasefire. That would require not only an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon, but also a withdrawal of Israeli soldiers from occupied Lebanese territory.

The Israelis, for their part, refuse to leave and refuse to stop bombing. They insist on what they call “freedom of movement” in Lebanon—meaning they can bomb whenever and wherever they want, for any reason, and their soldiers will never leave. This has become a serious point of contention and a real vulnerability in the U.S.-Iran deal, because everything depends on the Americans forcing Israel to cease its attacks and withdraw its forces. That’s one reason Iran included this provision: to test whether the U.S. is capable and willing to restrain Israel, which cannot sustain this war without U.S. weapons and funding.

Richard Eskow: A small point and a large point in reaction. The small point—but it sets the tone—is that I hadn’t heard the phrase “freedom of movement in Lebanon.” It’s classically Orwellian. If a burglar and murderer breaks into your home and you try to have him arrested, and he says you’re impinging on his freedom of movement to creep into your bedroom and stab you—that would be bizarre. But that’s what we’re dealing with. And that kind of language has worked in American, Western, and European media for a long time.

The larger point—and it shouldn’t need to be made—is that every single thing you just described is not only under-covered or ignored in Western media, but every single one is a war crime. Seizing another country’s territory is a war crime. Intentionally displacing people is a war crime. Destroying homes, murdering medics and health workers, murdering journalists—it’s a litany of war crimes. Yet day after day, I see headlines like “Israel says it will continue its war with Hezbollah regardless of what Trump negotiates with Iran.”

We could have a whole conversation about the Lebanese government’s complicity, but it seems to me that Hezbollah is none of Israel’s business. That’s the classic American move—going into Vietnam and saying, “We’re getting the communists out.” It’s not your business. It’s a war crime. It’s illegal.

So it strikes me that U.S. media continues to be complicit in warping and dimming the American public’s awareness of what’s being done with their money, resources, weaponry, and military targeting—and their AI.

Rania Khalek: Can I add something to what you’re saying? When you talk about this framing as “a war on Hezbollah”—Hezbollah are Lebanese people, mostly from the south. They exist because Israel used to occupy Lebanon, just as it occupies the West Bank, for 18 years. Israel invaded and occupied Lebanon in 1982 and imposed a brutal tyranny in the south. So, like any place in the world would, the local people created a popular movement—Hezbollah—an armed resistance to that violent, barbaric occupation. That’s why Hezbollah exists: because of Israeli aggression. Like them or hate them, they are Lebanese people who have a right to protect the territorial integrity of their country and to fight back against an occupier. These people are called “terrorists” for firing at Israeli soldiers illegally occupying Lebanon—just like in Palestine. That framing is absurd.

Also, on April 8th, the day after the first ceasefire was announced between the Americans and Iranians—with Iran stipulating that Lebanon be included, and the Americans reportedly agreeing—the Israelis decided to torpedo the deal. They unleashed hell on Beirut. I was there that day. They bragged about dropping 160 bombs in 10 minutes, mostly targeting Beirut. They killed up to 400 people that day. One of those people was my relative, who was killed while purchasing medication at a pharmacy to distribute to the displaced.

So when I saw the media coverage the next day and in the days after—headlines like “Israel’s attack on Hezbollah”—I thought, was my relative, buying medication at a pharmacy, considered a Hezbollah target? Apparently so. That framing is unbelievably offensive. And I’m not saying it would be okay if they were actually bombing Hezbollah—because they’re bombing apartment buildings, and this isn’t a war fought on the ground; it’s just bombing from the air with American weapons against people who have a right to defend themselves. But even the framing of “Hezbollah targets” is total nonsense.

Richard Eskow: I’m so glad you emphasized that. And something that may upset some people but is a fact of international law: when discussing Hamas, Hezbollah, or any group, armed resistance to illegal occupation is legal under international law. They are not, by existing, violating international law. Now, do they perform actions that violate international law? We can talk about that, but it’s part of a comprehensive conversation about the laws of war. That’s a very important point.

And this business of bombing apartment buildings and justifying it—I forgot the Israeli word for the AI system they use to drive many of those initial bombings. It translates as “Gospel” in English. As one operator said, it existed to generate reasons for targets. So if I live in a 500-person apartment building and there’s one person—a junior official in the sanitation department of Rafah who’s technically Hamas, for example—they can kill me and my entire family. That makes no sense. It’s horrific.

So here we have this extreme situation. Donald Trump publicly and softly chastises Bibi Netanyahu, saying, “They go a little too far,” and agrees—at least in principle—that the war crimes in Lebanon should stop as part of any deal. Meanwhile, Israel continues as it is.

One thing I don’t think gets reported or emphasized: if the U.S. truly wants a peace deal and Israel refuses to comply, the U.S. has all sorts of recourse. First, stop sending weapons. Second, stop sending money. Third, stop providing diplomatic cover that allows Israel to continue violating international law—not to mention stop targeting and other logistical support. So it strikes me that Donald Trump is getting a free ride. He continues to support and back these war crimes, and he gets to act like, “Well, I didn’t like it, I tried to stop it.”

Rania Khalek: I told Bibi on Truth Social! That’s so true—social posts don’t mean anything. Calling Netanyahu and using foul language, then bragging about it to Axios—that’s just theater. It doesn’t amount to real consequences for the Israelis. The only way to rein them in, if Trump really wants this deal to move forward, is to take away their weapons—to threaten material consequences. Otherwise, why would they stop? Why stop bombing Lebanon if the only consequence is Trump whining on social media? It’s also a way for Trump to use Israel as the “police dog” in the region: “We’re not the ones bombing Iran or Lebanon—it’s crazy Netanyahu.” Good cop, bad cop.

Richard Eskow: Right—”Oh, my partner’s nuts, he’ll do anything.” Well, then why is he your partner?

Rania Khalek: Exactly. Which is why Iran has been so insistent—of course, Iran and Hezbollah have a partnership and solidarity—but another big reason Iran is including Lebanon in this broader regional settlement is to test whether the Americans can rein in the Israelis. Because if Israel can continue to violate the understanding over Lebanon, what’s to stop them from violating it and bombing Iran again? They can do that without America’s help—not as frequently or destructively, but they absolutely can. Iran has sacrificed a lot, fought this war against the Americans and Israelis who started it, and they don’t want that to be in vain. They don’t want another war in six months or a year. For them, this is the war that needs to end all wars.

Richard Eskow: And, of course, the U.S. insists this is all about Iran’s fissionable material and potential to build a nuclear weapon—but we had a deal that was controlling that. And number two, if I were running Iran—admittedly hypothetical—and I knew Israel had nuclear weapons and was capable of doing things like this, a nuclear weapon would start to look like a pretty good countermeasure. I mean, I believe in complete elimination of nuclear weapons, which has been taken off the U.S. political agenda—but it used to be something people talked about. It’s simple logic: if they’re capable of violating any law and moral norm, you’ve got to do something. So none of this seems to be working.

Which brings us to the other dimension: the Democratic response. I have my feelings, but I’m sure you do too. I was reading up on it in the last 24 hours. What are your thoughts? I’ll keep my mouth shut.

Rania Khalek: This is really problematic. Obviously, this was a stupid, criminal, disastrous war that should never have happened. If you want to roast Trump for that, great. But it’s very stupid for Democrats to attack Trump for “capitulating” to Iran—because that’s what they’re saying. Adam Schiff said, “It’s hard to imagine a more thorough capitulation.” Amy Klobuchar accused Trump of spending American taxpayer money on giving Iran $300 billion—which is not true—and said we could end homelessness or fund cancer research for 40 years with that. That’s not accurate. The $300 billion fund being referred to is not U.S. government money; its money raised in a private capital account, especially from regional actors, to rebuild Iran—infrastructure that America destroyed. And it’s not coming from American taxpayers.

Another thing Democrats are attacking Trump for is “handing Iran billions of dollars.” Yes, the U.S. is part of the stipulation—giving Iran back its own money. The U.S. seized tens of billions of dollars from Iran, literally stole their assets. It’s just unfreezing Iran’s own money. So they’re framing it inaccurately to attack Trump from the right, when they should be applauding him for ending this war.

The problem is that the imperialist wing of the Democratic Party—honestly, most of them—and Republicans haven’t accepted that America lost this war. They haven’t accepted that the reason there are so many concessions from the Americans is that Iran had actual leverage. The Americans couldn’t afford to continue the war the way Trump was doing it. Because if you don’t compromise and give concessions, the war continues, the Strait of Hormuz stays closed, the global economy suffers, prices skyrocket, people starve. The Americans had no choice.

Losing is humiliating, so it’s understandable people are upset. But it’s a loss nonetheless. It speaks to the balance of power that emerged: all the leverage was in Iran’s hands because of the Strait of Hormuz. That’s the reality they need to accept.

Richard Eskow: I agree 100 percent. Well said. I would add that those Democrats are criticizing Trump because he’s “not getting anything” for this deal. Well, he started the war—why would he get something for ending it? That makes no sense. I do have to say, Rania, you gave a couple Democrats a free pass on this—and I’m going to shout them out.

Rania Khalek: Please, that would take the whole show.

Richard Eskow: Chris Murphy called it “surrender,” said it’s on Iran’s terms. You mentioned Brad Schneider, but Cory Booker said the U.S. would be releasing billions of dollars to an “enemy in Tehran.” Well, they weren’t the enemy until Trump started this war. And Iran got the better of them—that’s just the way it is. They didn’t think it through strategically. The seizing of the Strait of Hormuz—they have to get out somehow, or Trump and Western governments will pay a severe price. So they’re between a rock and a hard place. Not that I feel sorry for them.

So what should—before we go to what should be done—what’s your feeling about how the Bernie Democrats and progressives are responding?

Rania Khalek: Honestly, I haven’t paid much attention because it’s been overshadowed by those centrist corporate Democrats. I would hope they’re responding by applauding this war being over. That’s a good segue into what should be said: the way to respond is to applaud the war’s end, but criticize it as criminal and aggressive—something that should never have happened—and there should be consequences. Trump launched a preemptive war of aggression completely unprovoked against Iran in the middle of diplomatic negotiations for the second time. That’s a huge crime, a massive violation of international law. Democrats love to talk about impeachment—they should have impeached him for this. He launched a war of aggression. That’s where the criticism needs to lie.

I don’t know what Bernie said, but I really hope it’s not about how this “ruined America’s credibility.” Sometimes you’ll see that rhetoric: “It ruined America’s credibility and our soul.” I’m more concerned with the damage this has done to the world—how it’s bulldozed international law and norms, taken what Israel did in Gaza and expanded it to envelop a broader part of the region, making international law even more null and void than before. We’re in an incredibly dangerous, barbaric moment where the Overton window of acceptable criminality has moved even further into barbarism. That’s what’s concerning and what needs to be criticized.

Richard Eskow: Right. I didn’t see anything from Bernie. I saw Ro Khanna—who’s running for president in the Bernie lane—say, “The ceasefire agreement is welcome news. Democrats should support it. I’m glad it includes mutual respect. This war was a costly lesson, but we can be relieved that gas and food costs will start coming down for Americans.” That’s better than most of his party.

But there are concrete actions Democrats could take too, aren’t there? You’ve mentioned a couple provisions before Congress that could make a concrete difference. What are they?

Rania Khalek: Yes. Public opinion on Israel in the U.S. has cratered. Over 80 percent of Democrats now hold an unfavorable view of Israel, and a pretty high number of Republicans do too. The people who’ve spent decades building this U.S.-Israel relationship recognize what that means: that sentiment eventually shows up in Congress. So, understanding that unconditional support for Israel—particularly the weapons supply—might not continue forever, the Israel lobby and imperialists in the ruling class are trying to move now, while they still can, through quieter, more insidious measures.

One is Section 224, buried in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2027. In the House draft, it’s called the U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative. It would have the Secretary of War designate an executive agent to fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense industrial sectors—integrating Israeli-developed technology directly into U.S. research, procurement, and manufacturing across everything from AI to biotech to missile defense. Experts say this would be nearly impossible to undo. It would cement U.S. military support for Israel in an anti-democratic way that Congress couldn’t reverse.

There’s also a companion provision in the Senate’s intelligence bill—Section 622, introduced by Senator Tom Cotton. It would lock in expanded intelligence sharing with Israel and make it nearly impossible for even a future president to scale it back unless they can point to what the bill calls a “specific and identifiable national security concern.” It’s trying to make permanent America’s support for Israel’s settler colony in a way that would make public opinion irrelevant. Even if we elect a pro-Palestine Congress, these provisions would make it impossible to sanction Israel. That’s incredibly dangerous.

Look them up—Section 224, Section 622—because these are things you can actually call your members of Congress about. Say: “Do not vote for this provision. I do not want my taxpayer money cemented in place to support Israel’s genocidal army indefinitely.”

Richard Eskow: That’s very important. I’ll encourage people to look that up and we’ll try to publicize it ourselves. Because as we’ve seen with college and university protests, democracy and democratic rights seem to be the first thing tossed overboard in this country where this particular nation is concerned.

Thanks for pointing that out. Thanks for all your comments and your great reporting. Rania Khalek, journalist with Breakthrough News and host of Dispatches. Thanks for coming on the program.

Rania Khalek: Thanks so much for having me. Really appreciate it.

This work is only possible thanks to reader support. If you find it worthwhile, please help out with a paid subscription through Substack (discounted here) or on Patreon.

You can also make a one-time donation here.

Many thanks.