The ceasefire agreement between the Lebanese resistance and Israel came into effect at dawn on Wednesday, November 27, 2024, following an open military confrontation that lasted over two months and a supporting battle for Gaza that began the day after the Al-Aqsa Flood battle in October last year.
Involvement in Lebanon
Writer Dr. Abd al-Razzaq Maqri notes how Israel and United States leaders attempted to portray the ceasefire agreement as a defeat for the resistance, suggesting that the Al-Aqsa Flood would ultimately lead to final defeat for the resistance.
He points out that the rhetoric of these oppressive forces affected the morale of many supporters of Palestinian rights and the resistance. This shift aligned with the interests of those who wanted to retreat to their safe circles, unaffected by the volatile Palestinian situation and the images of humanitarian tragedies in Gaza that disrupt their familiar lives of peace and tranquility.
In an article published by the Palestinian Information Center, he argues that the Israelis understood they had become entangled in a war in Lebanon, which would be a devastating war of attrition for them and their future. They realized that achieving the declared war objectives related to disarming Hezbollah and breaking the resistance in Lebanon was impossible.
As a result, they accepted the ceasefire and relied on the U.S. to secure formal gains that would allow them to save face, such as Hezbollah moving beyond the Litani River and the Lebanese army deploying in southern Lebanon, ensuring Hezbollah would not be armed or manufacture weapons.
According to Hezbollah, the number of Islamic resistance operations since October 8, 2023, has exceeded 4,637 (announced) military operations over 417 days, averaging 11 operations daily.
Among these, there have been 1,666 diverse military operations since the start of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon and the launch of the “Fist of Strength” operations on September 17, 2024, averaging 23 operations daily. These operations targeted Israeli army bases, cities, and settlements, from the Lebanese border to beyond Tel Aviv, including heroic responses to enemy ground incursions into Lebanese territory.
The triad of Israeli objectives
Israeli affairs expert Ihab Jabareen believes that Israel sought the agreement to reorganize its ranks. He indicates that Israel attempted to achieve its military objectives, but airstrikes did not succeed, and on the ground, it faced strong resistance, resulting in a rapidly filled casualty count. This situation, according to Jabareen, pushed Israel to resort to diplomatic channels as a necessary option, sooner or later, to translate tactical strikes into strategic outcomes. For Israel, what existed before this war should not remain the same afterward.
In the opening of his article, he mentions three key factors that prompted the occupation to agree to the ceasefire: Iran, armament, and the need to ease fronts. These are points Netanyahu discussed in his promotional speech for the agreement, which closely resembles the Versailles Treaty for the region, addressing the Israeli public, even though the target audience was the international community.
Diminished goals
Jordanian writer Areeb al-Rantawi attributes the ceasefire in Lebanon to the differing objectives of the war in Lebanon compared to those in Gaza. He explains that in the first case, Israel could live with a lower ceiling for its expectations and goals, such as accepting Hezbollah’s withdrawal of its arms and forces to northern Litani, tightening oversight of this process, and closely monitoring the sources of the party’s armament, particularly from Syria.
He notes that driven by the significant successes achieved at the beginning of the war against Hezbollah, Israel raised its expectations and goals to the point of seeking to destroy the party, disarm it, and reshape the Lebanese political system, paving the way for a comprehensive reconfiguration of the Middle East while maintaining a “free hand” on the ground and in Lebanese airspace.
However, Rantawi also argues that these objectives quickly diminished after the party succeeded in restoring its leadership structure, absorbing the severe shocks it faced, and resuming the launch of missiles of various ranges and sizes, reaching Tel Aviv and its southern areas, in addition to fierce confrontations in border towns and villages. The current requirement is a return to Resolution 1701, but this time with greater oversight and control.
Shattering Netanyahu’s illusions
The essence of the scene aligns with Hamas’s view that the Israeli acceptance of the agreement with Lebanon without meeting its stipulated conditions is a significant milestone in shattering Netanyahu’s illusions of changing the map of the Middle East by force, and his delusions of defeating or disarming the resistance forces.
Hamas stated that this agreement would not have been possible without the resilience of the resistance and the popular support surrounding it. They expressed confidence in the continued support of the resistance axis for the Palestinian people and in backing their struggle by all available means.
