Lübnan yönetimi sömürgeciliğe teslim olmakla suçlanıyor
Middle East Eye'de yayımlanan bir analizde, Lübnan hükümetinin ülkeyi sömürgeci güçlere teslim ettiği ve izlenen siyasetin barış getirmeyeceği savunuldu. 2 Haziran 2026'da Washington'da ABD, İsrail ve Lübnan heyetlerinin katılımıyla yapılan toplantıya atıfta bulunulan yazıda, Beyrut'un Hizbullah konusunda Washington ve Tel Aviv'in dayattığı şartlar çerçevesinde hareket ettiği öne sürüldü. Yazara göre, Lübnan yönetimi yenilgiyi kabullenen bir zihniyetle dış müdahalelere boyun eğmekte ve bu durum ülkenin egemenliğini zedelemektedir. Toplantıya ABD Ulusal Güvenlik Danışman Yardımcısı Mike Needham ile Büyükelçi Michel Issa'nın katılması, iddiaları somutlaştıran bir örnek olarak gösterildi. Analiz, söz konusu diplomasinin kalıcı bir çözümden ziyade bağımlılık ilişkisini pekiştirdiğini vurguluyor. Bu eleştiriler, Lübnan'ın iç dinamikleri ile bölgesel güç mücadelesinin kesiştiği bir dönemde gündeme geliyor. Hizbullah'ın konumu ve İsrail ile normalleşme süreci tartışmaları bağlamında, hükümetin tavrı hem iç kamuoyunda hem de uluslararası alanda yankı bulmaya devam ediyor.
Bağlam, hikayenin etrafındaki ülke + lider + komşu hikaye ağına dayanılarak AI tarafından üretildi. Olgu içerikleri için her zaman üstteki kaynak linklerine başvurun.
Bu gündemi takip et
ABD gelişmelerini kaçırma — ücretsiz kaydol, günlük brifinginde gör.
Zaman çizelgesi
en güncel: 4 gün önce- Diplomatik04 Haz 14:05
Lebanon’s rulers have surrendered the country to colonialism - this is not peace
Lebanon’s rulers have surrendered the country to colonialism - this is not peace Amal Saad on Tue, 06/02/2026 - 16:06 In its defeatist worldview, the government now addresses Hezbollah through whatever terms are dictated by Washington and Tel Aviv US Deputy National Security Adviser Mike Needham and Ambassador Michel Issa attend a meeting with Israeli and Lebanese delegations, in Washington on 2 June 2026 (Kent Nishimura/AFP) On The US-brokered trilateral statement, issued by the US State Department on Wednesday following the latest high-level meeting between Lebanese and Israeli representatives, belongs to a category of political submission so extreme that it is difficult to locate a precedent in the history of modern statecraft. Lebanon, a state under attack, co-signs a document that conditions a ceasefire not on the withdrawal of the occupying power from its territory, but on the withdrawal of its own citizens from their land. The ceasefire agreement is not made conditional on Israel ending its aggression, withdrawing from occupied Lebanese territory, releasing prisoners, or enabling the return of the displaced, but on Hezbollah ceasing fire and withdrawing from the south. Israel is not even named in relation to the ceasefire’s obligations. What is presented as a cessation of hostilities is, therefore, structured not as the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, but as the removal of Lebanese from Lebanese land. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Nor is this omission accidental. Israeli freedom of action had already been normalised in a previous framework, and since this statement contains no requirement that Israel stop its attacks, that earlier dispensation remains intact. Instead, the centre of gravity is Hezbollah, which is defined not as a Lebanese resistance force confronting occupation, but as the problem to be dismantled throughout Lebanon. By placing its signature beneath US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claim that Hezbollah is "an enemy of Lebanon", the Lebanese government lends state authority to the assertion that both the resistance and the political community it represents are external to the Lebanese nation itself. An act of de-nationalisation In light of a recent poll showing that between 92 and 96 percent of Lebanon’s Shia community opposes every element of this agenda, this is not merely a policy dispute but an act of de-nationalisation. In other words, the Lebanese government is defining the virtual entirety of one of Lebanon’s largest communities as a hostile, non-national force, while claiming it has "no hostile intent" towards Israel and its genocidal attack on Lebanon. What is presented as a cessation of hostilities is structured not as the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon, but as the removal of Lebanese from Lebanese land The proposed "pilot zones" deepen this logic by making the authority of the Lebanese state in the south conditional on external certification, positioning the Lebanese Armed Forces not as a sovereign military force, but as an enforcement instrument for Israeli security requirements, and hence a co-belligerent in Israel’s war on Lebanon. Equally damning is that Lebanon co-signed a condemnation of Iran at the very moment when Tehran had made ceasing Israeli attacks on Lebanon as one of the central conditions of its own negotiations with Washington. In response to Israel’s continued operations in Lebanon and Gaza, Iran had treated a Lebanese ceasefire as a regional red line. It suspended talks with the US, threatened full closure of the Strait of Hormuz unless those attacks stopped, and warned that any Israeli strike on Beirut would trigger direct retaliation against Israel and risk resuming the war against the US itself. In effect, the Lebanese government actively disarmed itself of the only counter-leverage available to it, while lending its signature to the very US-Israeli framework designed to isolate that leverage, criminalise the resistance against occupation, and leave Lebanon negotiating alone under Israeli fire. Aside from the content, the significance of this text lies in the new conditions under which a Lebanese government can speak the language of Israeli security as if it were the language of Lebanese sovereignty, and can present the dismantling of resistance as the restoration of the state. The question, then, is not just what is being negotiated, but why such a project has become possible now. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The structural answer lies not in any change to the conflict’s colonial dimensions, but rather in a transformation of the imperialist context within which the anti-colonial struggle is fought. Massive miscalculations For decades, Lebanon’s fractured sovereignty was produced through competing external interests and/or tutelages, with Syria, Saudi Arabia, France, Iran and the United States each backing different local forces and sustaining contradictions that prevented any single power from achieving full hegemony over Lebanese politics. This fragmentation gave Hezbollah structural room to operate within the state. It also allowed successive governments to oppose the group politically, and at times contain it institutionally - but not to fully incorporate or eliminate it. Israel's colonisation of south Lebanon is already under way Read More » The current government has resolved that multipolar field into US unipolarity, removing the contradictions that previously made it structurally impossible to fully criminalise the resistance. In this new configuration, Washington has installed itself as the exclusive mediator of any settlement with Israel - an absurd designation for Israel’s principal sponsor, arms supplier and diplomatic shield, since a role that should - by definition - belong to a neutral third party is now occupied by the very power underwriting the war-making capacity of the main belligerent. This move was built on a miscalculation. Washington, Tel Aviv and their Lebanese allies read the 2024 losses of Hezbollah and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, alongside the wider pressure on Iran, as a historic opening - the moment when a US led by President Donald Trump, alongside a triumphant Israel, had achieved sufficient regional dominance to establish sole hegemony over Lebanon for the first time. Normalisation and disarmament appear together in this project because both are instruments for ending the structural conditions that once allowed resistance to survive, with the Lebanese government cast as the domestic administrator of a US/Israeli-designed order. What the government and its backers are now discovering, however, is that they chose to act at precisely the moment when Hezbollah is reconstituting its strength and Iran is consolidating its position as both the strongest regional power and the principal counter-hegemonic pole against the US-Israeli order. The Lebanese government’s miscalculation is not just a strategic misreading of the balance of forces. It also reveals the deeper intellectual and political formation that makes such a miscalculation possible in the first place. That formation is structured by two distinct but related layers of colonial internalisation - ontological and epistemic - each operating at a different depth, and together producing a political class that does not merely accommodate US-Israeli power, but has lost the capacity to think outside it. The first, ontological colonisation, is the internalisation of imperial power as the permanent horizon of political reality - a defeatism so complete that it no longer registers as defeatism, but as a lucid reading of the world. The second, epistemic colonisation, is the adoption of the coloniser’s knowledge system, whereby the Lebanese government perceives the conflict through the lens of the US-Israeli order itself: accepting its classifications of sovereignty, resistance, security and peace as if they were homegrown. This logic operates not by making US-Israeli power appear undefeatable as a fact of reality, but by making the US-Israeli interpretation of the conflict appear legitimate and true. Invisible horizon In the defeatist worldview of the Lebanese government, US hegemony functions not as one contingent power arrangement among others, but as the neutral and invisible horizon within which all political calculation must occur. This is hegemony in the Gramscian sense at its most complete: not power imposing itself by force, but power becoming “common sense” - ceasing to appear as power at all, and presenting itself as the permanent horizon of the possible. The resistance worldview is one that treats imperialism and settler-colonialism as contingent, historically produced, and hence defeatable, rather than as an irreversible reality It is, in this sense, a form of meta-political imperialism, operating not only at the level of policy or alignment, but at the prior level, where realism, rationality and possibility are defined. Those who have internalised this framework do not experience themselves as having surrendered, but as having seen clearly. Resistance thus appears irrational or utopian, because it’s detached from “reality”. By contrast, the resistance worldview is a different ontology - one that treats imperialism and settler-colonialism as contingent, historically produced, and hence defeatable, rather than as an irreversible reality. The Lebanese government’s defeatist worldview reveals itself in the language of officials who continue to speak in these terms, where submission is redescribed as realism and negotiations with Israel become the only imaginable exit. This ontological structure is visible in the State Department statement’s treatment of Israeli occupation. The absence of any demand for Israeli withdrawal is not merely a diplomatic omission; it reflects the zero-point logic of the US-Israeli order, in which Israeli presence on Lebanese soil is treated as the unmarked default, the background condition of reality that requires no acknowledgement, while Lebanese resistance to that presence appears as the marked disturbance that must be disciplined. Lebanon: Those who resist Israel are now called internal enemies of the state Read More » It is also evident in former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s insistence that "we are forced to deal with the Americans", and that Lebanon is now facing a "bitter reality" because refusing it would lead to "something even more bitter". This is not merely a pragmatic assessment of constraint; it is the verbal condensation of a worldview in which US-Israeli power has already been accepted as the limit of the possible. President Joseph Aoun translates this same ontology into the colonial language of rationality and irrationality. When he declares that “between suicide and prosperity”, he and his putative people choose prosperity; and that “between misleading slogans that destroy and rational steps that build”, they choose rationality, resistance is no longer treated as a political strategy with which the state disagrees, but as a pathology of reason itself. Hezbollah’s refusal to surrender is renamed "suicide", its political will redescribed as "instinct", and its sacrifices reduced to meaningless deaths. In this formulation, sovereignty becomes the state’s right to protect the population from its own allegedly irrational desire to resist dispossession. Logic of surrender This logic is the afterlife of the old right-wing isolationist maxim that “Lebanon’s strength is in its weakness”. Yet the position that names itself rational is profoundly self-defeating, insisting that Lebanon can negotiate alone, without Iran leveraging its regional power on the Lebanese state’s behalf, despite the overwhelming asymmetry between Lebanon and Israel. It is hard to rationalise this stance as either realpolitik or raison d’etat, since realpolitik would require maximising leverage rather than surrendering it, while raison d’etat would require subordinating all calculations to the defence of territory, sovereignty and people - not accepting the strategic terms of the state violating them. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); What is presented as sovereign reason is therefore closer to “raison de l’autre” - a state thinking and acting through the logic of those violating its sovereignty. It does not merely disagree with Hezbollah's strategy; it rejects the world of values within which resistance becomes a meaningful political choice The same logic imagines that surrendering the south will buy safety for the rest of the country, and that Israel will reward weakness with peace. Foreign Minister Youssef Rajji’s promotion of “Little Lebanon” as a formula for securing prosperity and protection for Christians captures this fantasy of insulated privilege. When it comes to epistemic colonisation - whereby the government no longer merely submits to the US-Israeli order, but begins to think through the categories of the order imposing itself on Lebanon - we witness a tradeoff between two kinds of sovereignty. The government imagines that it can obtain a Weberian sovereignty, a monopoly on violence inside Lebanon, by surrendering to Israel its Westphalian sovereignty - the right of the state to territorial integrity and freedom from external intervention. In exchange for disarming Hezbollah and giving the state formal control over weapons, it accepts that Israel may continue to bomb, occupy, dictate security conditions, and decide when Lebanon has complied sufficiently. The state is thus offered an illusory sovereignty over its own population in return for the relinquishment of sovereignty to the enemy. There is also a value dimension to this political stance. The government’s position assumes that a life organised around accommodation, stability and material prosperity is more fully human than a political life organised around collective liberation, justice, dignity and sacrifice. As such, it does not merely disagree with Hezbollah’s strategy; it rejects the world of values within which resistance becomes a meaningful political choice. The conflict is therefore not ultimately over weapons, but over the prior question of what sovereignty is for. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. Israel's war on Lebanon Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0
- Güvenlik04 Haz 16:07
Lebanon-Israel ceasefire plans in doubt following Hezbollah's rejection
Lebanon-Israel ceasefire plans in doubt following Hezbollah's rejection MEE staff on Thu, 06/04/2026 - 14:27 Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejects the outcome of talks, describing direct negotiations with Israel as 'shameful' for Lebanon. Plan is also criticised for lack of enforcement mechanism Lebanese Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa attend a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese delegations hosted by the US, at the State Department in Washington, D.C., 3 June 2026 (Reuters) Off A US-backed proposal to halt fighting between Israel and Lebanon has been met with immediate uncertainty, with Lebanese officials saying its implementation depends on Hezbollah’s approval and lacks a clear enforcement mechanism. It followed two days of US-brokered direct talks between Lebanese and Israeli representatives, the fourth round of such negotiations to be held in Washington. The talks produced a declaration calling for the implementation of a ceasefire and the creation of pilot zones in south Lebanon where the Lebanese Armed Forces would assume exclusive control, excluding all non-state actors. But a senior official close to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun told Middle East Eye that the text “has no implementation mechanism” and that the entire process now hinges on Hezbollah’s response. “The agreement is dependent on Hezbollah’s approval,” the official said. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); According to the official, neither Hezbollah nor Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a key Hezbollah ally and long-time intermediary between the group and Washington, had been aware of the full content of the deliberations as they unfolded. Once the text was ready, the Lebanese president sent it to both Hezbollah and Berri for feedback before Lebanon’s final position was conveyed to the United States, the official told MEE. The official described the negotiations as “tough and hard”, saying the Lebanese delegation threatened to suspend the session after Israeli pushback against a full ceasefire. The United States then proposed the pilot zones as a middle-ground formula, the official said. The pilot zones would serve as an initial test for a broader security arrangement in south Lebanon, where the Lebanese army would deploy and assume control in selected areas before any expansion of the model. Lebanon’s rulers have surrendered the country to Israel - this is no ceasefire Read More » The same official said the US delegation insisted on condemning "Iran's attacks on countries in the region", which members of the Lebanese side viewed as an attempt to further separate the Lebanon-Israel track from negotiations involving Tehran. Iran has made an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon a key condition of its ongoing ceasefire with the US. On Monday, it suspended talks with Washington in response to Israeli threats to bomb Beirut. "The US side insisted on repeatedly referencing Iran," the official told MEE, adding that this was widely understood as part of an effort to detach the Lebanon talks from the US-Iran negotiations. Since a 17 April nominal ceasefire, Israel has continued to expand its military footprint in southern Lebanon through a combination of occupied territory, air strikes and evacuation orders. Areas covering roughly a fifth of the country have been brought under direct or indirect Israeli control, extending well beyond the buffer zone initially declared after the truce. The declaration made no reference to a withdrawal of Israeli troops or an end to Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Thursday Israel "will, for the time being, continue its fire and operations on the ground". (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Katz said Israel would continue to dismantle Hezbollah "infrastructure in the area" and had "freedom of action, backed by the US to strike in Beirut in response to attacks on Israeli communities and territory". 'Shameful negotiations' Hezbollah was not surprised by the outcome of the talks. A source familiar with the group's thinking told MEE that Hezbollah had opposed the direct negotiations with Israel from the beginning because it believed it would inevitably lead to such a framework. “From the first statement issued after the first joint meeting that initiated the direct negotiations path, we knew this is where the Lebanese state intended to go,” the source said. “That is why we were against this track from the start.” Towns in northern Israel would not be secure 'as long as our villages are unsafe, bombed, destroyed, and our people are being killed' - Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem later rejected the outcome of the talks, describing direct negotiations with Israel as "shameful" for Lebanon and dismissing any attempt to link a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from the south to the group's disarmament. Qassem said a ceasefire must include southern Lebanon, where Israel has seized a self-declared security zone. He added that towns in northern Israel would not be secure "as long as our villages are unsafe, bombed, destroyed, and our people are being killed." For Hezbollah, the priority remains a complete halt to Israeli attacks across Lebanon and a full withdrawal from Lebanese territory before any internal discussion about its weapons can take place. The US-backed proposal, however, places Hezbollah’s military activity and presence south of the Litani River at the heart of the ceasefire framework, setting up an immediate clash between Washington’s approach and the group's stated position. A senior Lebanese official not involved in the negotiations told MEE that the proposal's wording was ambiguous. “It is not clear to me if the ceasefire is simultaneous or sequential,” the official said. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The official said one section of the statement was particularly damaging for Lebanon, pointing to language endorsing US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s assertion that Hezbollah is not only an enemy of Israel and the United States, but also “an enemy of Lebanon”. Israel's colonisation of south Lebanon is already under way Read More » “That paragraph is embarrassing to Lebanon, even if it states a US position,” the official told MEE. The dispute underscores the narrow path facing Beirut. The Lebanese presidency is presenting the proposal as a final opportunity to secure a comprehensive ceasefire, while Hezbollah sees it as an attempt to extract through diplomacy what Israel has failed to achieve militarily. It also exposes a central contradiction in the US-led process: Washington is seeking a state-to-state agreement between Lebanon and Israel, while Hezbollah, the most powerful military actor on the Lebanese side, remains outside the negotiations. The Israeli and Lebanese delagations are expected to reconvene later this month for further political and security talks. But without Hezbollah’s backing, Lebanese officials acknowledge that the proposal risks remaining a diplomatic framework with no clear way to implementation. Israel's war on Lebanon Beirut News Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19 Update Date Override 0
- İnsani07 Haz 11:52
Pakistan’s mediators in Iran as US downs drones, Lebanon looks for peace
Pakistan’s interior minister was in Tehran on Sunday in a fresh bid to restart negotiations between Iran and the US, as the American military said it shot down two more Iranian drones over the Strait of Hormuz that threatened international maritime traffic. The latest action came as the Washington presses for Iran to make a deal to end the war in the Middle East, which has strained the global economy and threatened a hunger crisis in some of the world’s most vulnerable countries. The heaviest...
- Güvenlik09 Haz 03:06
Pakistan’s vital US-Iran peace efforts
US President Trump announced in Wisconsin that the Iran war is “largely finished.” He explained that his goal is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and “the situation with Iran seems to be going quite well”. President Trump also said that he would be honoured to meet the Iranian Supreme leader if the US and Iran can make a deal. Despite occasional skirmishes and ambivalent Iranian signals, the optimism expressed by the US President indicates Washington hopes to eventually achieve enduring peace. This would not have been possible without the pivotal role played by Pakistan and Field Marshal Asim Munir in navigating the delicate peace process, despite landmines being laid throughout the process and across the region to sabotage it. Pakistan has played the leading role throughout this precarious peace process that faces complex challenges. For 47 years, the US viewed Iran as a threat to its regional interests and employed coercive diplomacy and economic sanctions to dissuade Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme and supported political activists opposed to the Iranian political system. However, two direct and major US and Israeli attacks within one year on Iran during Trump administration caused major damage to its infrastructure, killing thousands of people, including decapitation strikes on Tehran’s ideological, political, intelligence and military leadership. Although the Iranian political and security system seems to have absorbed these lethal attacks, it has also created a new security dynamic which poses more challenges to the diplomatic progress. Western military strategy traditionally assumes that decapitation of top political and military leadership can damage the political will of the adversary to wage war which can bring about a quick and decisive victory and help avoid a long and costly war of attrition. This approach seemed to work during World War II against Adolf Hitler, and later against the regimes of Saddam Husain, Muammar Qadhafi and Bashar al-Assad. Field Marshal Munir is the only international figure who has made two visits to Iran at the height of the crisis to persuade its political, military and diplomatic leadership, facilitate an enduring ceasefire and encourage progress on complex contentious issues However, these were totalitarian regimes whose political system collapsed as soon as their central figurehead was removed. This was not the case in Iran where the loss of top ideological, political and military leadership was a major shock to the nation but didn’t disturb Tehran’s political system or its military strategy. Iran has deliberately expanded both the theatre of conflict and the diplomatic chessboard. This has led the talks agenda to shift and expand beyond the Iranian nuclear programme to also include the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, enduring ceasefire in Lebanon and sanctions relief on Tehran’s frozen financial assets. Moreover, the decapitation of Iranian ideological, political and military leadership removed the most charismatic and experienced diplomatic figures, most notably Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ali Larijani, who have a track record of negotiating with the US. This has shifted power within Iran towards individuals who have not only more military experience of campaigns in Syria than diplomatic know-how, but also have a far deeper distrust of the US than their more seasoned predecessors –the first Trump administration unilaterally quit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), while his second term saw the elimination of Tehran’s national leadership. These attacks have deepened Iranian distrust, which has also hardened Tehran’s stance. This makes diplomatic progress not only more difficult, but has made Pakistan’s role more critical and necessary for the success of this complex and delicate peace process. Field Marshal Asim Munir was the only international figure to make two visits to Iran at the height of the Middle East crisis, to persuade Iranian political, military and diplomatic leadership, facilitate an enduring ceasefire and encourage progress on complex contentious issues. Despite pitfalls, Pakistan remains in a unique position to continue to steer this peace process because it simultaneously enjoys trust by both the US and Iran. This was made possible because Pakistan assured Iran that its territory and airspace will not be used for attacks on Iran, Islamabad condemned the attacks on Iran, as well as attacks on the civilian infrastructure of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states as a violation of international law. But most importantly, Field Marshal Munir secured President Trump’s security commitment that Iranian leadership will no longer be targeted. Without this vital security guarantee, there was no chance for the peace process to begin. Each social media post and statement by President Trump that expresses hope for a lasting ceasefire and resolution of other issues has helped de-escalate hostilities and eased global oil prices, which currently reflect unprecedented damage to the world energy and economic security. The fruits of Pakistan’s leading role and painstaking efforts as a ‘net regional stabiliser’ are being acknowledged, appreciated and enjoyed around the world. The final outcome of this peace process may take time but history will remember that it was only Pakistan that rose to the occasion to help end a major conflict, save precious lives and end the suffering of humanity, particularly the poor people around the world, when the international community had lost its trust and hope from international law and institutions for protecting regional peace, security and stability. The writer is an Islamabad-based security analyst with three decades of experience in teaching international security and strategic affairs. Published in Dawn, June 9th, 2026
Okumaya devam et
ilgili gelişmeler- Ortak aktörcanlı
İsrail'den Yeni Tahliye Emirleri; ABD Koordinasyonuyla Lübnan'da Derinleşen Operasyon
İsrail ordusu, 30 Mayıs 2026 Cumartesi günü yayımladığı yeni tahliye emirleriyle Lübnan'ın güneyinde Litani Nehri'ni aşarak operasyonlarını genişletti. Ordu birliklerinin nehrin kuzeyine ilerlediği bildirilirken, Hizbullah kuzey İsrail'e roket saldırıları düzenledi. İsrail'in Kanal 15 televizyonuna dayandırılan haberlere göre bu tırmanış, ABD yönetimiyle yakın koordinasyon içinde gerçekleştirildi. Haberler, Washington'un İsrail'in Lübnan'daki askeri operasyonlarının derinleştirilmesindeki rolüne dikkat çekiyor. Litani'nin ötesine geçiş ve yeni tahliye emirleri, çatışmanın şiddetinde belirgin bir artışa işaret ediyor. Gelişme, bölgede insani durumun daha da kötüleşmesi ve diplomatik gerilimlerin tırmanması riskini beraberinde getiriyor.
ABD12 olay3 gün önce - Ortak aktörcanlı
İsrail'in Lübnan Saldırıları Tırmanırken Netanyahu Güvenlik Toplantısı Düzenliyor
İsrail Başbakanı Benyamin Netanyahu, Lübnan'da devam eden askeri operasyonların tırmandığı bir dönemde bu akşam üst düzey bir güvenlik toplantısı düzenliyor. İsrail güçleri Hizbullah'ın faaliyet gösterdiği bölgelere daha derin ilerlerken, operasyonların kapsamı genişliyor. Toplantı, ABD-İran müzakerelerinin sürdüğü ve Tahran'ın bazı taleplerde ısrar ettiği bir zamana denk geliyor. Lübnan Sağlık Bakanlığı'nın açıklamasına göre, Mart ayından bu yana İsrail saldırılarında ölü sayısı 3 bin 433'e, yaralı sayısı ise 10 bin 395'e yükseldi. Bu rakamlar bölgedeki insani durumun vahametini gözler önüne seriyor. Diplomatik kaynaklar, müzakerelerin seyrinin artan çatışmalarla birlikte daha da karmaşık hale geldiğini belirtiyor.
İran20 olay03 Haz - Ortak aktörcanlı
İsrail Beyrut Banliyölerini Vurdu, Ateşkese Rağmen Lübnan'da Sivil Kayıplar Artıyor
İsrail, güney Lübnan'da yoğun saldırılar düzenlerken, haftalar sonra ilk kez Beyrut yakınlarını da hedef aldı. Başkentin güney banliyölerinde yer alan Dahieh bölgesine yönelik saldırılarda bir kadın ve iki çocuk yaşamını yitirdi. Lübnan makamları, güneydeki bombardımanda en az 14 kişinin öldüğünü açıkladı. Başbakan Netanyahu, Hizbullah’ın İsrailli sivillere yönelik saldırılarına karşılık olarak Beyrut’un varoşlarının hedef alınması talimatını verdi ve bölgede ‘sakinlik olmayacağı’ uyarısı yapıldı. Binlerce kişi evlerini terk etti. Saldırılar, ABD Başkanı Trump’ın İsrail ve Hizbullah’ın çatışmaları azaltma konusunda anlaştığını açıklamasından bir gün sonra ve BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nin toplanması öncesinde gerçekleşti. İran, geniş çaplı bir anlaşmanın koşulu olarak Lübnan’da ateşkesin sağlanması gerektiğini yineledi. Altı haftalık ateşkese karşın artan gerilim, ateşkesin kırılganlığını ve sivil halk üzerindeki insani etkinin büyüdüğünü ortaya koyuyor.
Lübnan9 olay03 Haz - Ortak aktörcanlı
Meta, Pekin'in Emriyle 2 Milyar Dolarlık Manus Satın Alımını Durdurdu
Meta, Çin merkezli yapay zeka girişimi Manus'u satın alma sürecini, Pekin yönetiminin eşi benzeri görülmemiş bir talimatı doğrultusunda feshetmeye başladı. CNBC'nin haberine göre, 2 milyar dolarlık anlaşma, Beijing'in girişimin iade edilmesi yönündeki emri üzerine askıya alındı. Bu karar, Çin'in teknoloji varlıklarının yabancı şirketlere satışına yönelik giderek sıkılaşan düzenlemelerinin son örneği olarak dikkat çekiyor. Pekin'in doğrudan müdahalesi, özellikle yapay zeka gibi stratejik alanlarda ulusal çıkarların öncelikli tutulduğunu gösteriyor. Anlaşmanın iptali, küresel teknoloji şirketlerinin Çin pazarındaki genişleme planlarını yeniden değerlendirmesine yol açabilir. Öte yandan, bu tür kısıtlamalar Batı ile Çin arasındaki teknoloji yarışında yeni bir cephe açma potansiyeli taşıyor. Manus'un durumu, Çin'in yapay zeka alanında kendi ekosistemini koruma çabalarının bir parçası olarak yorumlanıyor. Meta'nın anlaşmayı iptal etmesi, şirketin Çin düzenlemelerine uyum sağlama konusundaki istekliliğini yansıtıyor ancak aynı zamanda büyük bir yatırımın kaybı anlamına geliyor. Gelişmeler, uluslararası teknoloji birleşmelerinin siyasi gerginliklerden giderek daha fazla etkilendiğini ortaya koyuyor.
Çin1 olay1 gün önce - Ortak aktörcanlı
SpaceX 75 milyar dolarlık rekor halka arzla bugün borsada
SpaceX, hisse başına 135 dolardan 555,6 milyon hisse satarak 75 milyar dolar topladı ve tarihin en büyük ilk halka arzını gerçekleştirdi. Şirket bugün ABD borsasında işlem görmeye başlayacak. Bu gelişmeyle Elon Musk'ın dünyanın ilk trilyoneri olabileceği belirtiliyor. Rekor halka arz, teknoloji ve uzay sektörlerinde yeni bir döneme işaret ediyor. Analistler, SpaceX'in uzay taşımacılığı ve uydu interneti alanlarındaki lider konumunun yatırımcı ilgisini yüksek tuttuğunu ifade ediyor. Şirketin piyasa değerinin işlemlerle birlikte netleşmesi bekleniyor.
1 olay1 gün önce - Ortak aktör
Lübnan'da Direnişçiler 'İç Düşman' İlan Edilirken İran Zaferini Pekiştiriyor
Lübnan'da ABD arabuluculuğunda yürütülen görüşmeler, İsrail'e karşı direnen grupları devletin iç düşmanı olarak tanımlıyor. Bu süreç, devam eden İsrail saldırılarına siyasi örtü sağlamakla eleştiriliyor. Beyrut'un güney banliyölerinde eski Hizbullah lideri Hasan Nasrallah'ın posterinin bulunduğu bölgeye düzenlenen hava saldırısı, gerilimin sürdüğünü gösteriyor. Eş zamanlı olarak, Tahran'da Hürmüz Boğazı'nın İran'ın elinde olduğunu ilan eden billboardların yükselmesi, bölgesel güç dengesindeki kaymanın sembolü haline geldi. Analistler, İran'ın savaştan güçlenerek çıktığını, ABD ve İsrail'in ise yeni jeopolitik gerçeklikle yüzleşmek zorunda kalacağını belirtiyor. Ortadoğu ülkeleri artık Washington ve Tel Aviv tarafından dayatılan düzeni kabul etmeme eğiliminde. Bu gelişmeler, Mayıs 2026 itibarıyla bölgede silahlı çatışmaların diplomasiyle iç içe geçtiği kritik bir dönemi yansıtıyor. Lübnan'daki iç siyasi bölünme, İran'ın bölgesel nüfuzu ve İsrail'in askeri operasyonları arasındaki etkileşim, önümüzdeki dönemin belirleyici dinamiği olacak.
ABD2 olay25 May