Islam Times - Hezbollah Tel Aviv Attack Forced Netanyahu to Yield to Ceasefire, all Hezbollah Conditions Accepted: Expert

Hezbollah Tel Aviv Attack Forced Netanyahu to Yield to Ceasefire, all Hezbollah Conditions Accepted: Expert

Islam Times - While earlier last week the clashes on the Lebanese front escalated unprecedentedly since the start of the Israeli invasion, abruptly everything changed and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted ceasefire while a few could predict his agreement.

The news caused waves of happiness among the Lebanese, but on the other side of the border in the occupied territories no one was happy, and as the settlers waited to see calm after the ceasefire and move out of their shelters, the Netanyahu opponents described the agreement a surrender to Hezbollah and conflicting with the PM's claims of success in the war.

Meanwhile, there are still questions that are asked about why at the height of the war Netanyahu agreed to the truce deal, what side benefits from the terms of the deal, and how the equation of power between Israel and Hezbollah will change after this ceasefire and what effects it will have in the future.

To answer these questions, Alwaght talked to West Asia affairs expert Saadullah Zaree.

Ceasefire accelerated after Hezbollah attacks on Tel Aviv

Mr Zaree firstly highlighted the significance of understanding the time of accepting the ceasefire by Tel Aviv for getting a right picture of the situation. He said on Sunday the ceasefire agreement accelerated in a way we had never seen before. It was as if the regime was thirsty for it. That is, very shortly after the issue was raised, the Israeli cabinet convened and approved and implemented the plan. The agreement was signed at 9 pm on Tuesday and implemented at 4 am, which shows that the Israelis were thirsty for a ceasefire. Who was thirsty, who was in urgent need of it? When did the urgency arise? Indeed, since Hezbollah launched a heavy barrage of rockets at Israel.

In fact, after striking western Beirut, Hezbollah launched a very heavy barrage of rockets against Tel Aviv, and it was from this time that a great thirst for agreement arose in the Israeli regime’s cabinet.

Sunday’s attack signaled the emergence of a strategic scene on the path of the war. It showed that this was just the beginning of the story and that the Israelis, who did not have the power to manage this extent of the scene, were forced to reassess after three weeks of ground operations, reduce the number of their forces and change their fighting methods because they felt that they could not manage and continue this war in any way with the new conditions.

But another point that should be noted is that the Israelis say that this agreement was not at their request. This is while it is clear that Hezbollah did not request a ceasefire either. Hezbollah’s statements have always asserted the war will continue until the end of the aggression on Gaza. Now Netanyahu says that this ceasefire was not at his request, which shows the Israeli “reluctance” to accept this agreement.

In other words, the way Israelis dealing with this ceasefire includes both haste and reluctance; that is, Israel’s thirst for an agreement that it is reluctant to accept and does not like. But it is, nevertheless, forced to accept. The combination of these two factors confirms the picture that the media published of Netanyahu’s sad face and very tense expression at the cabinet meeting, which itself talks everything. When one of the Lebanese political figures was asked about their interpretation of the ceasefire, he said that no interpretation is necessary, but that the image of Netanyahu gives away everything.

Israel forced to accept the ceasefire

The Iranian political expert furthermore talked about the reasons behind the Israeli inability to continue the war and its acquiescence to the deal. He said the occupied Palestine should not be considered 28,800 square kilometers, but in fact, it should be considered to include the triangle of Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Al-Quds (Jerusalem), which is about 6,000 square kilometers. That is, unlike Hezbollah, which is not defined in a specific point, Israel is defined in a specific point. This triangle is the regime's population zone because it contains about 6 million Jews. It is the regime's political zone because the capital is here; it is the regime's economic zone because the ports and industrial centers are here; and it is the regime's intelligence-security zone because Unit 8200 is here.

Hezbollah has practically taken this special economic, political and social zone out of activity over the past two months and put Israel in a situation that it could not tolerate under any circumstances. During this war, especially the last two months, Hezbollah created a situation in this political, economic and social triangle of Israel that practically deprived Israel of the possibility of continuing to live, and the Israelis were forced to somehow extricate themselves from this pressure through this deal. The Israelis have admitted, through the statistics they have provided, that they have suffered financial losses of $84 billion so far, and if they continue for another month, their losses could reach $110 billion.

Netanyahu's retreat under Hochstein's second truce plan; accepting all Hezbollah conditions

Mr Zaree added that the US and Israel had an initial plan they raised before Ali Larijani, senior advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, visited Syria and Lebanon on November 19 and there were negotiations around it. The plan they bore several articles that opposed Hezbollah's positions, but they are not mentioned in the new plan. One element was that Israel could conduct preemptive operations. This article stated that both sides could confront threats; that is, preemptive action and aggressive operations could be conducted, which although Israel was not mentioned, it was clear that Israel was meant here.

The second point that drew Hezbollah's objection was the role of the US. Under the previous plan, the American team was actually managing the performance of UNIFIL and the Lebanese army in relation to the implementation of Resolution 1701, not supervising it. That is, the Americans had the right to command.

The third point was that the the proposal suggested a two-month ceasefire, but Hezbollah insisted it should be permanent. Hezbollah objected to these three elements of the proposal. Lebanon Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri also followed these Hezbollah objections.

The Israelis were not even satisfied with this at that point and thought that concessions could be wrested from Hezbollah and that they should not settle at this point. Then the American representative got angry and the plan was put on hold and everyone said that Hochstein's plan failed. When you observe the course of these developments, when Mr Larijani visited Beirut and Damascus, it was at a time when this plan was dying. Meanwhile, the Sunday developments took place; the Israelis struck western Beirut and Hezbollah launched an attack on Tel Aviv for a tit-for-tat equation. Shortly after this operation, Hochstein returned to Beirut and presented revised plan, according to Berri. The American envoy angrily told Berri "here is it. Accept it. Here it is and there is nothing else."

The Israelis voiced their general acceptance and approved a plan that is dozens of times weaker for Israel than the previous plan. In the previous plan, the Israelis demanded many concessions, but here they hastily accepted something that was much more problematic for them.

First, the two-month ceasefire was removed and was turned into a permanent ceasefire, and the Americans also announced that the ceasefire was permanent. The sixty days mentioned in the agreement are about the Israeli army withdrawal period: Twenty days for withdrawal from the eastern region, twenty days for withdrawal from the central region, and twenty days for withdrawal from the western region.

But why sixty days? Hezbollah earlier insisted on immediate withdrawal, why has it now accepted gradual exit? Because the plan states that the Lebanese army should replace the Israeli forces, and the army has also said that it is not ready for the task now and must recruit 15,000 new forces, which will take time. In fact, these sixty days are the time that the Lebanese army has requested.

Secondly, the role of the US has also been adjusted and has been reduced from a commanding side to one of two observers. Now, if we include UNIFIL as an observer, there will be three observers. Biden and Hochstein have also officially announced that they will not send any forces to Lebanon. But why France? Because Lebanon has requested France to join the deal and not because they imposed France on Hezbollah.

The third issue is the removal of the preemptive Israeli strikes condition in the new plan. The new plan states that the parties can defend themselves against aggression and take action; that is, the threat condition has been eliminated. Therefore, if Hezbollah attacks, Israel has the right to strike back, and conversely, if Israel strikes, Hezbollah also has the right to strike back. This is an international principle and is never a privilege or concession to Israel.

Also, claims that Resolution 1701 has been condensed under the new plan are false. The resolution is the same and the Americans and the Lebanese government say that we must implement this resolution. If they implement it, the situation will be like before. First, the Israelis cannot comply with it, and therefore the Israelis will automatically take the lead in violating the resolution. As Nabih Berri had previously said, Israel has violated this resolution more than 30,000 times. It is clear that Israel will not change its course and will continue the same course. They will do something to make this resolution practically meaningless. The UNIFIL forces have not changed and are the same as before. The Lebanese army is the same. These are not things that entangle Hezbollah.

The equation of unity of fronts still in place

Commenting on Israeli claims that Tel Aviv through its agreement with Hezbollah managed to eliminate Hezbollah's support for Gaza and the Axis of Resistance's "unity of fronts" equation which suggests that attack on one branch of the Resistance camp draws involvement other branches for support, Mr Zaree said there is an agreement between Lebanon and Israel, but there is no agreement with Iran, Iraq, and Yemen. So the unity of fronts still firmly stands. Hezbollah also officially announced that they are still part of the unity of fronts and their support for Gaza remains in place. Of course, they did not specify what kind of support. People only see Hezbollah's missiles fired in support of the resistance and Gaza. But there is a range of support to Gaza provided by Lebanon.

Meanwhile, the Americans said that they will soon reactivate Gaza war case for a ceasefire and predictions suggest it will happen before February. Biden pointed to this in his statement and in Israel talks about it have started not by the opposition but by Netanyahu himself.

Additionally, the agreement is accepted by the party Hezbollah has supported in the war. Hamas released a statement, welcoming the agreement and thanking Hezbollah for solidarity. This means that Hezbollah has done its job in this case.