The recent strike targeting a residential building in the town of Ain Saadeh in the Metn district on Sunday evening has reaffirmed that the confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah is no longer confined to clearly defined frontlines but has extended into residential areas that are presumed to be safe.
A statement by the Lebanese army said that two GBU-39 bombs were fired at the building in Ain Saadeh, penetrating the roof and the fourth floor before exploding on the third floor.
Although the intended target survived, the attack resulted in the killing of the head of the Yahshoush center in the Lebanese Forces party, Pierre Moawad, his wife Flavia Murad, and a woman who had been visiting them, in addition to injuries among several civilians.
Conflicting accounts emerged regarding the identity of the target, with some pointing to ties with Hezbollah and others suggesting a connection to the Quds Force. However, the outcome remained the same: civilians killed inside their homes.
The Israeli army spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, said that the army “struck a terrorist target in the area of east Beirut,” adding that reports of injuries among “uninvolved Lebanese civilians” were still under review, while accusing Hezbollah of operating within civilian areas.
The Ain Saadeh incident was not isolated. Days earlier, a strike in the Jnah area south of Beirut killed Hezbollah commander Youssef Ismail Hashem. According to the Health Ministry’s Emergency Operations Center, the attack resulted in five deaths and more than fifty injuries.
Similar strikes in recent months have also hit residential buildings in Beirut, Bourj Hammoud, and Doha Aramoun, in addition to targeting hotels in Beirut and its suburbs.
This has heightened concerns in Lebanon about the diminishing role of geography in defining danger zones, and the widening scope of operations to include residential neighborhoods, with all the implications this carries for civilian life and daily routines.
Why Inside Residential Neighborhoods?
Ali al-Amin, editor-in-chief of the Janoubia website, believes that, aside from moral and humanitarian considerations, Hezbollah members and leaders may resort to hiding outside their traditional support base “as a way to reduce risks.” He explained to Alhurra that “these environments offer a degree of protection compared to uninhabited areas and may also reflect a state of retreat or an attempt to evade the war.”
For his part, strategic expert retired Brigadier General George Nader considers that this shift is linked to “a broad intelligence penetration within the party’s areas of influence,” noting that “the ease with which first- and second-tier leaders are being assassinated is a clear indicator of the scale of this breach.”
Nader added to Alhurra that “moving to other areas aims at blending in among residents unfamiliar with them, providing a relative margin of safety.” However, he pointed out that this method “is no longer effective given the major advancements in intelligence, both technical and human.”
He further explained that Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian war “enabled Israel to collect precise data on its members, including voice and visual fingerprints, helping it build a target bank that allows it to track and strike party members and leaders, especially when they use mobile phones, regardless of their location.”
At both the political and public levels, the presence of Hezbollah and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard members in hotels or densely populated residential neighborhoods has sparked widespread anger.
In this context, MP Cynthia Zarazir described it as “an entirely unacceptable terrorist act,” telling Alhurra that “whoever wants to participate in the war should go to the border, not bring strikes into populated areas.”
Concern has not been limited to residential apartments but has extended to the hotel sector, which is also facing risks. Recently, there have been incidents of guests targeted inside some hotels.
In this regard, the head of the Syndicate of Hotel Owners in Lebanon, Pierre Achkar, confirmed that hotel activity has been severely affected, noting that “the decline in business ranged between 90 and 95 percent.”
Achkar explained to Alhurra that hotels have tried to adapt to the new security reality by adopting strict measures, most notably “restricting entry to a single entrance instead of multiple access points, to control movement and enhance monitoring within facilities.”
He also pointed to tighter coordination mechanisms with General Security, noting that “hotels used to send lists of guests every three or four days, but now they are submitted on a daily basis.”
Regarding bookings, he highlighted increased scrutiny, explaining that “it is no longer acceptable for one person to book several rooms for their family without presenting identification documents for each individual.”
Social Implications
On the social level, these developments have pushed property owners to tighten rental conditions, amid the inability to verify the backgrounds of some tenants. This has particularly affected displaced people, especially from the Shiite community, who face growing difficulties in finding housing.
Al-Amin warned that “civilians are paying the highest price, as the presence of party members taking shelter within residential neighborhoods exposes them to targeting, exacerbating the suffering of residents and displaced persons and placing them in a continuous cycle of anxiety and instability.”
He also pointed to “signs of growing resentment toward Shiite displaced persons in some different sectarian environments, due to the security concerns their presence raises,” warning of socially driven sectarian tensions, although they remain “limited in scope and containable so far.”
Municipalities have also begun taking precautionary measures. Following the Ain Saadeh strike, the municipality called on residents to report any suspicious activity or behavior, based on guidance from security agencies.
Other municipalities had already taken similar steps. Bikfaya municipality imposed restrictions on renting or sheltering anyone without prior approval, while the municipalities of Zouk Mosbeh and Faqra required mandatory reporting of cases involving hosting or renting to displaced persons.
Samir Geagea, head of the Lebanese Forces party, said that “municipalities are doing their duty by documenting information and referring it to security agencies, but follow-up by these agencies is insufficient.”
Geagea stressed that “the responsibility for identifying entities that pose a threat does not lie with municipalities, but with security agencies, which must have clear lists and take the necessary measures to protect citizens who trust the state. Seventy-five percent of the Lebanese people abide by the state, but the state is not committed to them.”
For his part, MP Elias Hankach renewed his call via X for the president of the republic and the ministers of defense and interior, along with the army commander and the director general of the Internal Security Forces, to impose security checkpoints and support municipalities in surveying and inspecting shelters and rented apartments. He also called for declaring a state of emergency, questioning the delay in taking such a decision.
However, Nader pointed out that the state’s capacity remains limited “due to its lack of sufficient information about individuals or their affiliations, in addition to the absence of authority to intervene in rental decisions.” He added that this “restricts its room for maneuver and makes its preventive capacity almost nonexistent, except in specific cases involving known individuals.”
For her part, Zarazir believes that any discussion about what the state can do remains postponed “until it frees itself from Hezbollah’s authority,” considering that the state is “paralyzed as long as it remains in a position of obedience to the party.”
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
