À l’entrée, j’ai accroché des affiches que j’ai longtemps cherchées avant de les trouver :
l’annonce du concert de Fairouz à Baalbeck en 1961,
l’affiche du film Avengers: Age of Ultron,
une image portant cette phrase de Mahmoud Darwich :

« Tiens-toi à l’angle du rêve et combats»

et une dernière affiche que nous n’avons trouvée nulle part. Alors, nous l’avons faite nous-mêmes.

Elle reprend le titre d’un article de Samir Kassir, écrit exactement un mois après le 14 mars 2005, publié le 15 avril :

« Le désespoir n’est pas une fatalité. »

J’aime cette phrase depuis mon enfance, depuis les premiers instants de ma conscience politique. J’y entendais un élan, une poussée vers l’avant, un rappel quotidien que la réalité qui nous entoure n’est pas éternelle, et qu’il est possible de la changer.

Avec le temps, et à mesure que les injustices s’accumulaient, repousser le désespoir semblait devenir chaque jour plus difficile, plus lointain. Il m’est arrivé de me dire que Samir Kassir lui-même n’avait peut-être pas imaginé que le monde puisse dériver à ce point vers l’irrationnel et l’absurde, jusqu’à faire de la sortie du désespoir une mission presque impossible.

Mais ce que je ne comprenais pas encore, c’est qu’entre le presque impossible et l’impossible, il y a toute la différence du monde.

Le presque impossible n’est pas impossible.
Tout comme le désespoir n’est pas une fatalité.

C’est ce que certaines expériences, certaines scènes, certains événements récents m’ont appris. Et c’est ce que Samir savait déjà très bien, il y a plus de vingt et un ans.

Lorsque la majorité des élites politiques et médiatiques au Liban s’étaient résignées à l’idée que l’influence d’Assad, de son armée et de ses relais politiques était impossible à faire disparaître, elles se sont adaptées à la réalité. Elles l’ont avalée. Elles sont devenues comme des champignons aux marges du régime, se nourrissant de sa corruption.

Samir Kassir, lui, avec une poignée d’autres, avait compris que la réalité n’est ni éternelle, ni fermée. Qu’elle peut être changée. Pas seulement au Liban, mais en Syrie aussi.

Samir savait très bien que le prix à payer pour affronter le « presque impossible » était élevé. Et pourtant, il a risqué sa vie pour briser le désespoir et ouvrir le passage vers une autre réalité.

C’est aussi ce qu’a fait Gisèle Khoury, avec lui, puis après lui.

Gisèle a donné tout son temps et toute son énergie à la même idée, au même combat. Par de grands moyens, parfois : la fondation, le prix, le festival. Et par de plus petits gestes, d’autres fois : son rire, sa joie, son élégance si belle, cette grâce dont elle savait peut-être qu’elle agaçait les assassins de Samir plus que toute autre chose.

Cette année, l’anniversaire de l’assassinat revient pour la première fois après les vingt ans. Et le monde est complètement différent.

La plupart de ce qui semblait être une réalité immuable et que Samir croyait possible de changer, contrairement à presque tous les autres, a bel et bien changé.

Bachar al-Assad et son régime appartiennent désormais au passé. Une grande part du désespoir s’est réellement brisée.

Il est vrai que l’injustice ne tombe pas avec la chute de quelques tyrans. Mais, dans bien des arènes, il semble vraiment que Samir ait gagné son pari.

Il suffit de regarder la scène d’aujourd’hui pour savoir qui a remporté la bataille.

À la fin de cet été, les amis de Samir et de Gisèle se retrouveront à Beyrouth, venus de tout le monde arabe, pour honorer, au nom de Samir Kassir, la presse libre et la mémoire de ceux qui ont refusé de céder au désespoir.

Fiers de lui.

Et fiers d’eux-mêmes d’avoir préservé son nom, et d’avoir poursuivi le chemin de Gisèle depuis Beyrouth, la ville la plus chère à son cœur.

Samir Kassir est présent aujourd’hui, plus que jamais.
Gisèle est présente aussi.
Et Beyrouth est présente. Le soleil ne l’a pas quittée, malgré le ciel souvent brumeux au-dessus d’elle, malgré la terre qui tremble sous ses pieds.

Pendant ce temps, Bachar al-Assad, lui, a disparu, de l’histoire, de la Syrie, et avant cela déjà, du Liban.

Il a abandonné tous ceux qui avaient travaillé avec lui, puis il a fui. Les gens le détestent. Ils se désolidarisent de lui à chaque occasion. Ils évitent son nom et se moquent de ses images.

On ne meurt pas lorsque l’on est tué.
On meurt lorsque l’on est oublié.

Et Samir et Gisèle n’ont pas été oubliés. Ils sont là, dans les conversations des gens, dans les rues des villes, dans les plumes des écrivains, dans les sacs des étudiants.

Quelle vie pourrait être plus vaste que celle-là ?

Celui qui est vraiment mort, c’est Bachar al-Assad dans son exil. Mort sur les écrans, mort dans les discours, mort dans le regard des gens.

Le jour de la chute de Bachar al-Assad, à la fin de 2024, j’ai suivi les nouvelles de Syrie jusqu’aux premières heures de l’aube. Le sommeil a fini par me rattraper. Je me suis assoupi une heure à peine.

Puis je me suis réveillé et j’ai regardé mon téléphone.

La première chose que j’ai lue était un court message de mon frère.

Il m’avait écrit :

« Le désespoir n’est pas une fatalité. »

Car parfois, une phrase suffit pour tenir debout. Et parfois, quand l’histoire finit par lui donner raison, elle devient plus qu’une phrase : elle devient une promesse tenue.

Cet article est également disponible en arabe.

Pour lire la version arabe, cliquez sur le lien suivant

“How beautiful winter is! How romantic!”

And as I looked at the people saying these things, an old conviction resurfaced inside me:

Winter is made only for the rich.

You will never meet a “well-off” person — (they panic at the word rich) — who admits, or even realizes, that they belong to that category. Wealth is always relative.
But I use winter as a quiet scale in my head — a way to sort people socially.

Those who love winter fall into two groups: farmers… or the well-off.
And since agriculture in Beirut is slowly dying under the weight of concrete, the “winter romantics” we hear from nowadays are almost entirely people with comfort, money, and insulation.

After all —
How could someone who wakes up to a gentle mist falling over their garden, then sips coffee behind a window the size of a door, overlooking freshly washed greenery… possibly hate winter?

They shower in hot water without a thought, step into a covered garage where their car slept dry and warm, untouched by humidity or rain.
They drive out without feeling a single drop — neither on their heads nor on their high, four-wheel-drive cars built to glide over flooded streets.

They reach the office, park again in another sheltered garage, and climb up to their warm, dry workspace — winter still “romantic” in their minds.
In the evening, the scene repeats itself: maybe a padel match in a covered court, maybe a bit of shopping under bright mall lights.

Meanwhile, in a parallel world, stand those “cursed by circumstance,” the ones who hate winter.
These people begin counting rainy days from the very first cloud, anxiously awaiting the end of every storm. They fall asleep worrying about the next morning’s commute:

Will the road flood?
Will the highway close?
Will they make it to work,
or will the rain swallow them first?

When morning comes, they rush out, silently praying that the sky doesn’t pour its entire reservoir on them at the exact moment they’re waiting for a shared taxi or stepping out of their car to clock in.

And somewhere during the day, a heavy thought suddenly strikes:

Did I shut all the windows properly?
Did I close the curtains tight?
Will I return to a flooded home?

Winter, for them, becomes another spinning wheel of stress — added expenses, heating costs, transportation, leaks, repairs, floods — all beyond their ability to absorb.

People often try to bridge class divides in their daily conversations, and sometimes they even succeed… in every season except winter.
Winter exposes everything.
Rain dissolves the masks painted on our faces and reveals the raw, ugly truths of a world — and a country — where there is no fairness, no justice, no equality.

Sun or storm… under the same sky.

Not so long ago, Trump’s playbook in the region crystalized at the end of his presidential term. On September 15, 2020, the UAE, Bahrain, and Israel signed historic agreements, known as the “Abraham Accords Declaration,” to normalize relations and end more than four decades of hostilities and enmity. It also marked the first normalization treaty since the Oslo Accords (1993–1995) between Israel and Palestine and the Wadi Araba Treaty (1994) between Israel and Jordan. Shortly after, Sudan and Morocco followed suit and signed their own peace treaties with Israel. These Arab countries would not have embarked on such a bold and influential course without receiving concrete guarantees and benefits—not from Israel, but from the United States. For instance, on December 10, 2020, Washington proclaimed its recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over the Western Sahara, while on December 14, the U.S. Government announced Sudan’s removal from the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST) list.

Furthermore, Trump’s administration linked normalization with economic prosperity and security in the Middle East. A perfect example of this policy was outlined in the 2023 “India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor,” which included two Arab countries that normalized relations with Israel (UAE and Jordan), along with another major regional power on track to join the league: Saudi Arabia.

Regarding Israeli-Saudi relations, the two were on course to normalization, sponsored and mediated by the United States, if not for the “Al-Aqsa Flood” on October 7, 2023. Riyadh outlined its conditions for any peace treaty, which must include a U.S.-Saudi defense pact (similar to NATO’s Article 5), the sale of advanced U.S. arms and warplanes to Saudi Arabia (most prominently the F-35 fighter jets), Washington’s assistance in developing its own civilian nuclear program, and a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue as outlined in the 2002 “Arab Peace Initiative.” The latter calls for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within its internationally recognized 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the halting of all settlement projects, especially in the West Bank. Despite the U.S. efforts to achieve this historic milestone, the events since October 7 have hindered this process and put the fate of an Israeli-Saudi peace treaty in question.

Fast-forward to today’s conflict, Donald Trump has been carefully observing the developments unfolding. This issue is also related to the U.S. presidential elections, especially in the state of Michigan. Michigan hosts a significant portion of Arab Americans, who constitute a majority in Dearborn, and is one of the country’s seven essential swing states that play a key role in determining election outcomes. Trump criticized current U.S. President Joe Biden, and later his Vice President Kamala Harris, for their “weak” and “destabilizing” policies in the region, vowing to end the conflict if elected. On October 26, 2024, he sent a letter to the Lebanese American community, claiming that he aims to achieve not only “equal partnership among all Lebanese communities” but also real and lasting peace in the Middle East. Notably, Trump referred to the word “peace” seven times, signaling his determination to pursue a comprehensive peace plan in the region. This was reiterated by Dr. Massad Boulos, coordinator of Arab relations for Trump’s campaign, who claimed that the former President “is a man of peace and has shown this during his four years, achieving four peace agreements in the Middle East—a feat not seen since Camp David.”

Despite his stated intent to achieve peace, the means and policies Trump might resort to do not necessarily guarantee this goal anytime soon. He could advocate further escalation, especially between November 6, 2024, and January 20, 2025, before reaching the aforementioned peace, in order to bend the so-called “Resistance Axis.” This axis includes Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza, where Tehran’s proxies are active. Severe sanctions, economic pressure, assassinations, and even striking Iran’s nuclear facilities might well be on the table—measures previously endorsed by Trump.

In conclusion, Trump has his eyes on achieving comprehensive peace in the Middle East to add to his previous “achievements.” However, substantial questions remain: Will the “Resistance Axis” bend to his aspirations? Will Israel pursue a limited land grab in Gaza and Lebanon for future bargaining, similar to the 1979 “Camp David Accords”? Will Israel sincerely commit to establishing the Palestinian state demanded by Saudi Arabia? Or will it, along with the U.S., rely on Trump’s highly controversial 2020 peace plan? Finally, will Trump achieve the peace he has continuously promised, and at whose expense?

However, the current regional dynamics in the Middle East have shifted the balance. Despite Hezbollah’s growth over the past two decades, the group has suffered major setbacks, particularly from Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency and the Israeli Air Force. From targeted assassinations of top commanders to sabotage through pager and walkie-talkie explosions, including the elimination of the leadership of its elite Radwan Special Forces, Hezbollah is now facing disarray. Some of these setbacks include:

1)    According to Reuters, a source (Hezbollah official) said the attack on the communication devices have put some 1,500 fighters out of commission because of their injuries.

2)    Senior figures have been targeted including top commanders like Fuad Shukr, Ibrahim Aqil, and Ibrahim Qoubeissi (recently assassinated in the southern suburbs of Beirut).

3)    Major arms depots and missile factories have been heavily bombarded by the Israeli military, especially in the Baalbek-Hermel region.

Despite these setbacks, Hezbollah still uses a flexible command and a vast network of tunnels to sustain its operations. A report to the US Congress, on September 20, have put the fighter power of Hezbollah between 40,000-50,000 fighters though Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah says it’s around 100,000 fighters.

This means that Hezbollah still maintains significant power and an aerial campaign alone, no matter how intense, cannot win the war.

What are the Israelis planning to do?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to see the current moment as a pivotal opportunity to finally neutralize Hezbollah, a group that has consistently posed a formidable threat to Israel since 1982. With the U.S. elections looming in just 44 days, Netanyahu, whose own political future has been uncertain amid domestic controversy, may feel pressured to take decisive action.

Netanyahu is likely contemplating a strategy similar to that employed by Ariel Sharon during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Sharon aimed to dismantle the PLO and establish a secure buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Today, Netanyahu’s potential goal could be to push Hezbollah forces north of the Litani River, establishing a 40-kilometer security zone between northern Israel and Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon. This area was once patrolled by the now-defunct South Lebanon Army (SLA), which served as an Israeli proxy force until the Israeli withdrawal in 2000.

However, unlike 1982, the current situation poses significantly greater challenges. Hezbollah is not only far more powerful than the PLO, but it also possesses a sophisticated arsenal of long-range and precision-guided missiles. Moreover, Hezbollah has strong political backing from Iran and is deeply entrenched in Lebanese politics. A ground incursion could provoke a widespread retaliatory missile campaign targeting Israeli cities like Haifa, and potentially Tel Aviv. The question remains whether Israel is willing to endure such heavy damage in exchange for securing the buffer zone. Will Israel pursue a negotiated settlement through diplomatic channels, or is Netanyahu prepared for a protracted, high-cost conflict?

But what if it’s long distance? What if you didn’t choose the circumstances, and it just happened? Where do you go with this plethora of feelings and emotions that you eagerly want to share with your partner when they’re across the world? One would argue that it’s a choice—maybe it is, of course—but when you’re in love, you just decide to face it and go all in for that person who’s multiple time zones away from you. Long-distance relationships may not be only problematic for us Lebanese people—that’s for sure—but my country chose to make it harder.

I fell in love with this girl at a club, fully aware that she was Lebanese by identity and would only come to Beirut for visits while living elsewhere. But it’s just the person that my heart wanted, and I couldn’t get her out of my mind after our first date. When you live in Lebanon and think about going for a long-distance relationship, you have to ask yourself first: Can I do it? The obvious answer is yes—maybe. But then you remember that your country is torn apart, not only by division but by crisis after crisis, which hinders any prospect of immigrants wanting to return home.

You remember that they might come back for a visit, and you wonder what it would be like if they decided to stay one day. You might start to think that maybe it’s you who’s got to be moving out of this country. However, then you remember that your Lebanese passport is one of the weakest in the world, and should you decide to try visiting them, you either have to be rich and well-off, or you have to go through the lengthy processes of visa applications in hopes you get approval for even just a few days to meet somewhere halfway.

It’s devastating how your beloved country doesn’t allow you many options. Sometimes it feels like you only have two: one, being to choose to stay and risk it all—maybe another financial crisis will strike the country, and you will lose all your money, or maybe another outburst of wars will pop up every now and then and destroy all the hopes you have of a better country. The other option is for you to leave everything and everyone behind for a better future—maybe a tougher one—away from your family and your friends from home.

As days pass by, things are not getting easier. All we see is tension, escalation, and whatever comes to your mind in terms of fear and war. You always feel like you’re one step closer to a place where there’s no escape, where the doors would shut down, and you won’t find a way out, or potentially the way out is very dangerous and scary. But regardless, the closer you feel to that, the more you feel like you’re drowning, and your partner just across the planet is so far away, and you both feel helpless, and it sucks.

Should I hate Lebanon? Should I hate the “Lebanon is well-known for its special geographic location”? Or is it the messed-up geopolitical games that have been played ever since the beginning of this piece of land that put everyone in this situation, where they can’t justify leaving or staying at the same time? Eventually, you fight your way forward for love, regardless of the costs, because no matter what, you know that once everything settles, all that’s left is love.

A Chilling Echo: Is History Repeating Itself?

As the world grapples with economic uncertainty and geopolitical tensions, a growing number of analysts are drawing unsettling parallels between the present and the tumultuous decades preceding the First and Second World Wars. The specter of a third global conflict, once a distant nightmare, has re-emerged in the collective consciousness.

Economic Precipice: A Recurring Pattern

Economic crises have historically served as fertile ground for the seeds of war. The Great Depression of the 1930s, a cataclysmic economic downturn, provided the perfect breeding ground for extremist ideologies and authoritarian regimes. Countries like Germany, Italy, and Japan exploited the public’s despair to rise to power, fueling aggressive expansionist policies that ultimately ignited World War II.

Today, the global economy is experiencing its own turmoil. Stock markets have plummeted, driven by a perfect storm of inflation, supply chain disruptions, and geopolitical uncertainties. While these economic challenges do not directly translate into armed conflict, they create a climate of instability and desperation that can exacerbate existing tensions and make populations more susceptible to divisive rhetoric.

Geopolitical Fault Lines: A Dangerous Equilibrium

The intricate web of alliances and nationalistic fervor that preceded World War I, as well as the rise of totalitarian regimes in the interwar period, offer chilling echoes of our current geopolitical landscape. The Israeli-Iranian conflict, marked by Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its support for proxy groups, is a powder keg in the Middle East. The US-China rivalry, a battle for technological supremacy and geopolitical influence, bears striking similarities to the Great Power competition that preceded the First World War.

Moreover, the proliferation of regional conflicts, from Ukraine to the Sahel, adds to the overall sense of global instability. These hotspots can quickly escalate, drawing in major powers and creating a domino effect that could lead to a wider conflagration.

Technological Arms Race: A Double-Edged Sword

Technological advancements have always been a double-edged sword in the history of warfare. The introduction of tanks and chemical weapons in World War I, followed by the devastating power of nuclear weapons in World War II, transformed the nature of conflict.

Today, the world is undergoing another technological revolution. Cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and hypersonic missiles are reshaping the battlefield. While these technologies offer immense potential for human progress, they also pose significant risks. The potential for miscalculation or accidental escalation is heightened in an environment where adversaries possess increasingly destructive capabilities.

A Cautionary Tale or Inevitable Destiny?

While history does not repeat itself, it often rhymes. The economic, geopolitical, and technological conditions that preceded the two world wars are undeniably present in today’s world. However, it is crucial to avoid alarmist rhetoric and recognize the significant differences between the past and the present.

The global interconnectedness of today’s world, as well as the existence of international institutions designed to prevent conflict, offer some hope for avoiding a catastrophic war. Nevertheless, the current trajectory demands urgent attention. Diplomatic efforts, conflict prevention, and arms control must be prioritized to mitigate the risks and build a more stable and secure future.

The question remains: Are we merely witnessing a storm before the calm, or is history about to repeat its most tragic chapter? Only time will tell.

In the Middle East, Israel and Iran are among the major superpowers, often in opposition. While Iran does not directly engage in balancing, its main strategy is proxy balancing, which involves the transfer of resources to third parties to rectify regional imbalances of power. Resources transferred include selling arms to third parties.

It’s common knowledge that Iran transfers resources to the resistance group Hezbollah, a resistance movement that was established in Lebanon in response to Israel’s invasion in 1982. Israel has emerged as a regional hegemon and opted to use an offensive strategy in dealing with its foreign relations.

Despite attempts by Western media to twist the narrative, Israel employs offensive tactics, and this was evident in the Palestinian case. Critics argue that Israel has the right to self-defense, overlooking the fact that Israel is based on occupied territory, violating multiple international laws and agreements.

Breaking historical precedent, on April 14, Iran carried out a direct retaliatory assault against Israel following the bombing of the Iranian consulate in Syria, shifting away from its usual proxy balancing strategy. The Israeli assault can be interpreted as a clear declaration of war. However, this does not immediately indicate an open Iranian-Israeli war. It’s unlikely that Iran would officiate a war against Israel. While Iran is a major power in the Middle East, Israel is backed by the US, a hegemonic state with abundant military and financial resources.

At the onset of the Palestinian conflict, there was an assumption that Middle Eastern nations would rally behind Palestine; however, upon closer examination, they concluded that forging alliances with Israel would better serve their interests. This move sparked international surprise and disappointment. However, this underscores the relentless pursuit of states to protect their sovereignty and interests, acquire more power, and maintain the status quo. Regional dynamics are unlikely to shift unless states such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain adopt a balancing strategy instead of bandwagoning against the perceived threat. The normalization agreements between Israel and Middle Eastern states have been significant diplomatic breakthroughs in the region. While these agreements didn’t directly make Israel stronger, they did enhance Israel’s diplomatic standing and regional power.

If countries such as the UAE and Bahrain did not take part in normalization agreements with Israel and it did not rise to power, would the state of Israel commit actions that can be construed as crimes against humanity so freely? The answer is unlikely. Middle Eastern states that chose to bandwagon with Israel rather than oppose it did so after calculating that it was in their best interest to join the perceived threat. By allying with the perceived threat, they made the regional threat more powerful. While those Middle Eastern countries chose to ally with the perceived threat power, weaker states such as Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen used a balancing approach by allying with Iran, a major power in the Middle East, in an attempt to weaken the regional hegemon.

The strategic alignment of Middle Eastern states with Israel made Israel more powerful. Those agreements gave Israel regional leverage, shaping the geopolitical landscape of the region in major ways. These developments marked significant shifts in the regional balance of power and have implications for peace and stability in the Middle East. While analysts believe that Iran is unlikely to wage an open war on Israel due to its limited resources, the situation is evolving, leaving room for unforeseen developments.

The outbreak of the Israel-Hamas conflict has diverted US attention away from Ukraine, as Israel holds a primary and significant alliance with the United States. This shift has complicated matters for the US administration, as maximum support is crucial for Ukraine to counter Russian capabilities. Furthermore, the conflict has exacerbated divisions between the Republican and Democrat parties, each advocating for support but differing in their approaches. Consequently, Ukraine has experienced prolonged delays in receiving essential aid packages due to considerations for Israel. Additionally, the Pentagon has encountered challenges in procuring artillery shells and boosting production domestically and among allies, further complicating the situation. The sway of the US towards Israel over Ukraine can be attributed to several factors, including effective lobbying efforts from Zionist-backed groups like AIPAC. This prioritization raises questions about the comparative importance of Israel and Ukraine in US foreign policy. The deadlock in the Ukraine-Russia conflict has forced the US to reassess its stance, acknowledging Ukraine’s limitations in confronting Russia and hesitating to pursue planned actions, such as joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, due to potential complications and ramifications.

Despite perceived weaknesses in Russia’s army at the start of the conflict, Russia was able to counter challenges, overcome difficulties, and hold its position. Another factor in why the US averted attention to Israel is the possibility of an all-out war in the Middle East, which could have detrimental effects for US personnel and bases around the region. This comes as Iran and AoR proxies like Hezbollah, the Yemeni Houthis, and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq continue to grow and threaten Israel due to the ongoing war. On January 28, 2024, a one-way drone attack took place at a US outpost (Tower 22) in Jordan, resulting in the deaths of three US soldiers and injuries to 47 others. The US administration is considerate of Iran and its proxies’ power in the region and wants no further confrontation. This is particularly why the US continues to be against an Israeli offensive in Rafah as well as an expanded war in the North against Hezbollah.

These conflict dynamics may change soon, but what is certain is that the US is more interested in Israel than Ukraine at the present moment. What will change with a new US president is uncertain, but one thing is certain: Ukraine has lost.

On October 8th, one day subsequent to Hamas’s offensive, Hezbollah—Iran’s most formidable militant organization—launched several missile strikes against Israeli installations in the occupied Chebaa farms and Kfar Chouba hills. This action compelled the Israeli Defense Forces, who were contemplating an offensive against Gaza, to retaliate directly by bombarding various areas in southern Lebanon. The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel commenced with tit-for-tat exchanges and has escalated to encompass multiple, even dozens, of daily attacks. Furthermore, the conflict has expanded and deepened into both Israeli and Lebanese territories, with Hezbollah repeatedly targeting regions such as Safad, while the Israeli military has extended strikes to locations like Saida, Baalbek, and the capital, Beirut. Nonetheless, the ongoing nature of the conflict differs significantly from the previous war in July 2006 waged by these enduring adversaries. This conflict is notably influenced by the Russian-Ukrainian war, which has prompted both militaries to increasingly deploy suicide drones and other types of UAVs, reducing reliance on conventional ground invasions and human resources.

So, what can we anticipate in the upcoming months? Clearly, neither I, you, the US administration, nor Hezbollah have any definitive answers. The trajectory of the conflict lies in the hands of the Israeli government and its defense forces. An all-out confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel would be unprecedented, given Hezbollah’s significant enhancements in capabilities since the 2006 war and Israel’s advancements in technology, including the utilization of AI, which has greatly bolstered its military’s ability to target key Hezbollah figures. However, the potential extent of the devastation would be unimaginable for both Israel and Lebanon. Unlike the current British and US strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel could ignite a broader regional conflagration, detrimental to all parties involved, including the US (which explains Amos Hochstein’s frequent visits to Beirut).

Moreover, concerns about an all-out war continue to escalate, as Western diplomats have cautioned that Israel has set a deadline until March 15 for a ceasefire to be negotiated. Failure to reach an agreement could prompt the IDF to prepare for a ground invasion aimed at pushing Hezbollah and other armed groups beyond the Litani River (a strategy reminiscent of events in 1978). In conclusion, despite Hezbollah’s resolve and obstinacy, neither side desires a full-scale conflict, even if certain individuals in positions of authority may harbor such intentions. A ceasefire appears probable, although it should ideally be established in Gaza first.

Until March 15…

Ancient Roman Beginnings:
The origins of Valentine’s Day can be traced to the ancient Roman festival of Lupercalia, which was observed in the middle of February. Through a variety of ceremonies and celebrations, this festival was devoted to paying tribute to Faunus, a Roman god of agriculture and fertility. Nevertheless, the day gradually gained an air of romance because it featured the poetry of medieval writers like Geoffrey Chaucer. Valentine’s Day began as a custom of exchanging handwritten love letters and little presents on February 14th, and it developed into a tradition by the 18th century. The tradition has since infiltrated contemporary celebrations of love and affection.

The Enigmatic St. Valentine:
At the core of Valentine’s Day is the legend of St. Valentine, an adored Christian martyr whose heroic actions left an everlasting impression on history. St. Valentine rejected Roman Emperor Claudius II’s decree, which prohibited weddings for young men, believing that unmarried soldiers were stronger warriors. Despite the dangers, St. Valentine continued to perform secret marriages for couples in love, seeing love and devotion as hallowed virtues deserving of protection. However, his actions of rebellion ultimately led to his capture and execution. The myths surrounding St. Valentine’s secret marriages, his unwavering dedication to love, and his final sacrifice brought a dimension of intrigue and mystique to the celebration of Valentine’s Day, reinforcing his association with themes of love, dedication, and the triumph of the human spirit.

However, some cultures reject celebrating it for a variety of reasons, including commercialization concerns, with a sizable faction viewing Valentine’s Day as too marketed. The emphasis on pricey presents and elaborate actions might overshadow genuine love, leading some to question the celebration’s validity.

Everyday love Proponents believe that love should be celebrated every day, rather than just on a particular day defined by commercialization. For these people, spontaneous demonstrations of affection are more important than waiting for a specific date on the calendar.

In some religious communities, Valentine’s Day celebrations may collide with traditional or conservative values. Some people are hesitant to participate because they believe the holiday’s origins and rituals contradict their religious or cultural ideals.

Exploring Alternative and Modern Perspectives on Love:
Valentine’s Day may seem less meaningful or unneeded to cultures that celebrate love in different ways or at different times of the year. These cultures may explore alternative viewpoints on love. These alternatives highlight the range of ways that love may be expressed in different cultural contexts. Concurrently, current viewpoints on love are changing throughout the world, changing the story surrounding this beautiful holiday. While many regions of the world continue to celebrate Valentine’s Day with great enthusiasm, inclusion, self-love, and embracing a variety of forms of affection have become more important.

With its deep historical roots, Valentine’s Day offers a fascinating look into the complex connections that exist between love and celebration. Its roots are in the mysterious tale of St. Valentine and ancient Rome, merging to form a universal phenomenon that cuts across national and cultural boundaries. But what really adds depth to the story of Valentine’s Day is the range of viewpoints it provokes, influenced by different personal, societal, and religious convictions. This spectrum of perspectives creates a complex and multidimensional picture of how love is experienced and expressed around the world. Valentine’s Day provides an enthralling lens through which we explore the intricacies and beauty of human connection, whether it is joyfully accepted or faced with cautiousness.