Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Over 200 killed, but Netanyahu says "we continue": what stands behind strikes on Beirut

Israel killed a personal adviser to Hezbollah's leader and destroyed infrastructure in Lebanon — over 200 people died in a single day. The EU and France are demanding a ceasefire, but lack leverage to enforce it.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

April 9, 2026 · 2 min read

Over 200 killed, but Netanyahu says "we continue": what stands behind strikes on Beirut
Беньямін Нетаньягу (Фото: Ronen Zvulun/EPA)

On April 9, Israel launched massive strikes on Beirut and southern Lebanon. More than 200 people were killed — Lebanon's Ministry of Health warned that the figure would rise. Netanyahu confirmed the elimination of Ali Yusuf Harshi — a personal assistant and, according to the military, nephew of Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Kassem.

Who is Harshi and why it matters

Harshi was not a field commander. He was part of Kassem's inner circle: he coordinated access, communications and, according to the IDF, participated in the group's rearmament. His killing is a blow to Hezbollah's chain of command, not just to an individual. The IDF also attacked Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon: major crossings, weapons depots, launch sites and group headquarters.

"We continue to strike Hezbollah with strength, precision and determination"

— Benjamin Netanyahu, X, April 9

Where the EU stands — and where its influence ends

The head of European diplomacy Kaja Kallas supported Lebanon's efforts to disarm Hezbollah and called for extending the ceasefire to Lebanon. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated that Lebanon should be included in any ceasefire agreement, while insisting that Iran must stop supporting proxy groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis.

The problem is that there is no enforcement mechanism behind these statements. Israel violated the November 2024 ceasefire almost daily — the Lebanese government counted more than 2,000 Israeli violations in just the last three months of 2025. Kallas supports disarmament — but actual responsibility for its implementation rests with the Lebanese army, which still lacks both the resources and the mandate for direct confrontation with Hezbollah.

Context that disappears from headlines

According to the International Organization for Migration, more than 64,000 people remain internally displaced in Lebanon. The April 9 strikes are not an isolated episode but part of a campaign that has essentially never stopped since November 2024. Israeli soldiers hold five positions on Lebanese territory, controlling significant areas of southern Lebanon through drones, airstrikes and fire.

  • Eliminated: Ali Yusuf Harshi, personal assistant and nephew of Naim Kassem
  • Casualties: more than 200 killed in one day, according to Lebanese Ministry of Health
  • IDF targets: crossings, depots, launch positions and headquarters in the south
  • EU reaction: condemnation, call to expand ceasefire — without a sanctions mechanism

If the Lebanese army does not receive concrete funding and a mandate to deploy in the south by year-end, the EU's calls to disarm Hezbollah will remain a declaration — and Netanyahu knows this.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026