TEHRAN - Bahia Halawi, the deputy general manager at Al-Mayadeen, believe that direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel with the mediation of the U.S. cannot guarantee Lebanon’s long-term security as Israel maintains occupation, pressure, and repeated violations of ceasefire.
“When one side continues military operations while simultaneously demanding political concessions, the process risks becoming coercive rather than genuinely diplomatic,” Halawi tells the Tehran Times.
She says, “Lebanon’s long-term security depends not only on talks, but on enforceable guarantees.”
Recently, the U.S. has hosted two rounds of ambassador-level talks between Israel and Lebanon, with a third round scheduled for May 14–15 in Washington. The first round took place on April 14, and the second on April 23. Both were held in Washington and involved the U.S. facilitating direct discussions between the two countries.
Halawi says the U.S., which is Israel’s closest ally, cannot serve as a neutral mediator, saying Washington “fails to address the structural causes of instability or to establish a genuinely balanced framework rooted in international law, sovereignty, and equal accountability.”
The following is the full text of the interview:
In your assessment, how have Western and mainstream international media framed the recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon, particularly those that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians? What key elements of the story do you believe are underreported or systematically omitted?
Western and mainstream international media often frame Israeli attacks on Lebanon through a security-first lens: Israel “responds,” “targets Hezbollah,” or “acts against threats,” while Lebanese civilian deaths appear as secondary consequences rather than the central story, often portrayed merely as collateral damage. It is also important to note the repeated emphasis on Israeli military “warnings” and “alerts,” even though many attacks affecting civilians occurred without meaningful or effective warning mechanisms.
This framing tends to underreport the human scale of the attacks, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the repeated displacement of communities, and the continuation of strikes even after ceasefire announcements. The overall coverage frequently fails to convey the scale of destruction taking place on the ground, reducing widespread devastation to fragmented security updates. Add to that the terminology and language used when reporting on Lebanese victims. The framing adopted by much of the Western and international media often follows the same formula: “two Lebanese killed,” “a score of casualties,” or “several dead.” But killed by whom? Who carried out these actions? Why is the perpetrator so often absent from the headline, forcing readers to dig into the second or third line of the piece to discover that it was Israel?
Yet when the situation is reversed, the language suddenly becomes direct and explicit. This discrepancy is neither arbitrary nor accidental. This is a deliberate editorial framing to shape how audiences perceive whose lives are considered politically or emotionally significant. We don't get to read stories about Lebanese casualties. Their lives are not viewed as worthy. There is also a systematic omission of the broader context: the history of Israeli violations, the asymmetry of military power, the long-term impact on Lebanese society, and the legal and ethical questions surrounding proportionality and collective punishment.
In addition, there is a historical and cultural dimension that receives very little attention internationally, particularly regarding repeated attacks on southern Lebanese towns with deep Christian historical and religious significance. Churches, monasteries, shrines, cemeteries, and family homes in these regions are tied to generations of collective identity and spiritual life, clearly absent in the Western media.
The killing of Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil has drawn attention to the risks faced by media professionals in conflict zones. Based on your experience, does this incident reflect a broader pattern of targeting journalists, or is it treated internationally as an isolated case?
Israel has been systematically targeting journalists and media outlets in Lebanon and Palestine, thus the killing of Amal Khalil should not be treated as an isolated tragedy. Journalists covering Israeli military actions are exposed not only to the dangers of Israeli aggression but also to direct and deliberate targeting. Reports stated that Amal Khalil’s killing was a “double-tap” strike, while press freedom organizations highlighted her long record of field reporting from southern Lebanon.
Internationally, however, such cases are often individualized: one journalist, one incident, one investigation. This fragmented treatment prevents the broader pattern from being fully acknowledged. The real question is not only why Amal Khalil was killed, but why journalists in Lebanon and Gaza repeatedly become part of the battlefield itself.
At Al Mayadeen, we have experienced this reality first-hand. We lost colleagues who were carrying out their journalistic duty, including two young females, Farah Omar and Fatima Ftouni, who were killed by Israel while reporting from southern Lebanon.
We also witnessed the injury and targeting of other journalists in the field. These are not isolated episodes detached from one another; they point to an environment in which the protections theoretically granted to journalists in conflict zones are repeatedly failing in practice whenever we are dealing with Israel.
What becomes especially dangerous is the normalization of this reality. When the killing of journalists generates temporary outrage but little accountability, it creates a new reality where media workers operating in these regions can be targeted without meaningful consequences.
