How do you folks reconcile Ezekiel 26:14 with modern-day Tyre?

I've been reading through the book of Ezekiel lately, and am confused by 26:14. The verse states that Tyre would never be rebuilt, but there is in fact a city called Tyre in roughly the same spot in modern-day Lebanon--it's the biggest city in that country, in fact. Skeptics across cyberspace love to pull up issues with 26 and 29, but I find most of them to be pretty trivial--*except this one*, which is giving me fits. GotQuestions says that Tyre being less impressive now (which it is, to be fair) means it was never "truly" rebuilt, but I don't think that's a very convincing argument. I also heard somebody say that large swatches of Tyre were archeological digs and thus not being rebuilt--this does not seem to be the case, judging by satellite photos. It also can't be the case that one of the two Tyres (Island vs Coastal) was restored but not the "real" Tyre, because modern Tyre covers both sites and most of the causeway that Alexander built betwixt them. **I'd like to ask how you all reconcile this passage, especially if you have any novel takes on it**. The main counterpoints I can think of are: 1) A rebuild in the sense described would almost certainly require being built on the same land, and *maybe* with some of the same assets--I couldn't just create Tyre, Nebraska and call it a rebuild. Given Alexander's causeway having mucked up the terrain so badly (and torn down all surrounding ruins to build it), a "rebuild" may be definitionally impossible. I'm not sure about this one, because it's not like there was just a Tyre-shaped hole in the earth--there *was* still ground, and Tyre *had* been on top of it, so would that be the same ground? 2) I am unsure *where* modern Tyre started, but it is possible I suppose that it could have started off-site and urban sprawl reclaimed the old location--thus, you may not call it a "rebuild" of old Tyre, but an expansion of new Tyre. Again, this is a definitions game that I'm not confident in. 3) Technically, it could simply be unfulfilled--somebody else could throw Tyre into the ocean again. This may stretch plausibility though. Please help me out here. Everything else in the chapter seems to line up dandy, and it's frankly embarrassing that I can't reconcile a town smaller than my state capital. EDIT: Something I remembered from a conversation with a mutual was that in Bible times a city would likely not be considered proper without defensive walls & such. Tyre has not had those since Alexander, and thus may not, within the Biblical sense, be considered a complete rebuilt city. EDIT AGAIN: Re-reading the passage, it occurs to me that the prophecy may be discussing Tyre *as a country*. I believe I am to understand that Tyre was independent of national rule and was thus effectively it's own country (the world was a lot smaller back then), until Nebuchadnezzar made the city a vassal state. I don't know if this is a valid tack, as the word city is mentioned later in the chapter--but I think back then, a fortified city and a country were somewhat synonymous (thought not of course entirely interchangeable. Jerusalem was not Israel). Can somebody who knows more about the history/culture of the Near-East chime in on the merits of this point?