President Joseph Aoun raised the tone Wednesday, April 8, after another wave of Israeli strikes in Lebanon. In a statement, the Head of State denounced a « new massacre » committed by Israel, held it « fully responsible » for its consequences, and called on the international community to intervene to stop repeated attacks that it considers to be contrary to international laws, practices and commitments. This declaration comes at a time when, according to Israel, Lebanon remains excluded from the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran, despite calls from Beirut, Paris and other actors to include it in regional de-escalation.
A presidential condemnation with exceptionally harsh vocabulary
In his text, Joseph Aoun speaks of « barbaric aggressions » that « do not know the law » and « respect no agreement or commitment ». He claims that Israel has, for fifteen months of a cessation of hostilities, accumulated the violations and breaches « without any hindrance », before « persistent » today in its offensive by committing, in his words, « a new massacre » added to a « black register ». The President considers this escalation to be a direct challenge to human values and efforts to restore calm and stability.
The choice of these words matters. Joseph Aoun is not limited to protesting against an additional strike. It seeks to establish a broader narrative, that of Israeli continuity in the violation of the commitments made since the end of the last phase of escalation. This line joins other recent presidential statements, in which he already denounced attacks on civilian infrastructure, journalists or inhabited areas, calling for a stronger external response.
« Israel bears full responsibility for the consequences »
The most political passage in the communiqué is probably the one in which the Lebanese President claims that this « dangerous escalation » makes Israel « full responsibility for its consequences ». This formula is not only used to morally condemn the attack. It also aims to establish in advance the responsibility for a possible enlargement of the crisis, while Lebanon remains subject to strikes despite the truce between the United States and Iran. Joseph Aoun adds that the continuation of these aggressive policies will only lead to « more tension and instability, » at a time when the region would need to calm down and respect commitments.
This direct indictment is part of a broader diplomatic battle. Since the announcement of the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran, Israel maintains that Lebanon is not part of the scheme and that the campaign against Hezbollah continues. Conversely, several actors stressed the need to extend the logic of de-escalation to the Lebanese front. In this context, the Lebanese presidency seeks to show that Israeli strikes are not a separate episode, but a factor of regional destabilization that could jeopardize the ongoing peace sequence.
An explicit appeal to the international community
Joseph Aoun was not content to condemn. He also called on the international community « to shoulder its responsibilities » to put an end to these repeated attacks and to stop a method which he considers threatening for the security and stability of the entire region. The aim of this call is to put the Lebanese crisis within an international framework, as Lebanon struggles to impose its own reading of events and to obtain concrete guarantees on the ground.
Baabda’s argument is based on a simple idea: without external intervention, Lebanese convictions remain without effect on the Israeli conduct of operations. This logic is visible in several recent official positions. At the end of March, following attacks on infrastructure in the south, Joseph Aoun had already called on the international community to « dissuade » further attacks. A few days later, after the death of journalists in the Jezzine area, he again denounced a crime violating international norms and conventions protecting the media in wartime.
A reaction that is part of a series of strikes
The declaration of the Head of State comes after a particularly violent day. Strikes have been reported on Beirut and its suburbs, Saida, Bekaa, Tyre and many locations in southern Lebanon. The Israeli army claimed a large-scale operation against approximately 100 sites and infrastructure attributed to Hezbollah in Beirut, Bekaa and the south of the country. At the same time, the Israeli authorities have confirmed that, in their view, the ceasefire with Iran does not apply to Lebanon.
It is in this context that the Presidency speaks of a « new massacre ». The word refers not to a single single strike, but to a sequence perceived as systemic, affecting several regions and aggravating an already very heavy human balance. In the previous days, reports of more than 1,000 deaths in Lebanon since the resumption of hostilities in early March were reported by news agencies. This accumulation gives the presidential speech a wider scope than a simple emergency response. It aims to qualify a method of war, not just an episode.
Fifteen months of violations: Baabda puts the sequence back in time
The Lebanese President insists on « 15 months » of violations since the cessation of hostilities agreement. This temporal reference is important. It means that, from Baabda’s point of view, the current crisis does not start with the latest bombings. It extends a sequence in which commitments made would never have been fully fulfilled. Lebanon has long accused Israel of increasing overflights, strikes and sprains to de-escalation mechanisms, particularly since the end of the 2006 war and even more so since the more recent truce.
In recalling this continuity, Joseph Aoun also seeks to delegitimize any Israeli attempt to present his current operations as a one-off or strictly defensive response. On the contrary, the Presidency maintains that there is a documented recurrence of violations without sufficient international sanction. The implicit message is clear: if Israel acts today with such freedom, it is also because it was already able to do so yesterday without encountering any real diplomatic cost.
A Presidency that tries to avoid diplomatic erasure
Joseph Aoun’s reaction is also part of a struggle for Lebanon’s political centrality. Since the announcement of the truce between Washington and Tehran, the country has often given the impression of being spoken by others: Israel claims that it is not included; Iran and Pakistan support the opposite; France calls for its full integration into regional peace. In this landscape, the Lebanese Presidency is trying to take up the initiative by setting its own reading: Lebanon is a victim of aggression, Israel bears responsibility for escalation, and the international community must act.
This strategy responds to structural weakness. Lebanon today does not have the military or diplomatic means to impose a change in Israeli behaviour alone. It must therefore seek to transform political denunciation into international pressure. The purpose of the presidential speech is precisely this: to place Beirut at the centre of the case, to prevent the Lebanese front from being relegated to the rank of appendix of the Iranian-American truce, and to recall that the absence of an external response from the Lebanese point of view amounts to a form of permissiveness.
A condemnation that also speaks inside Lebanon
The Baabda communiqué also has an internal scope. In a country crossed by deep divisions over Hezbollah, Iran and the relationship with Israel, the Presidency here chooses a line of minimum unity: condemning the attack, defending the territory, calling for the protection of civilians and referring responsibility to Israel. This posture does not regulate internal fractures, but it allows the Head of State to reaffirm a regal function at a time when Lebanon often appears to be dispossessed of its ability to set the pace of war and peace itself.
It should also be noted that this line agrees with other recent statements by Joseph Aoun, particularly when he stressed the need to include Lebanon in « regional peace ». The condemnation of the strikes and the call for an international intervention are in line with the same logic: to prevent Lebanon from being simultaneously bombarded and the great forgotten of diplomatic arrangements.
A presidential sentence that summarizes the impasse of the moment
The key sentence of the communiqué is probably this: the continuation of aggressive Israeli policies will only lead to more tension and instability. It fairly sums up the current situation. While a truce exists between Washington and Tehran, the Lebanese front remains active. While several actors speak of regional de-escalation, Israel maintains that its war in Lebanon continues. As Lebanon demands to be included in peace, it continues to absorb the strikes. It is this contradiction that Joseph Aoun is trying to put at the centre of the international debate.
In condemning the attack with such firmness, the Head of State therefore tries less to comment on the event than to set the political meaning: for him, it is not one more incident, but a turning point which shows that, without external reaction, Lebanon will continue to pay the price of a war that others claim to want to contain.
