As the 60-day deadline for the Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories approaches, reports and actions since the recent ceasefire on 27 November have raised serious doubts about the Zionist entity’s intentions to comply. This possibility has become a pressing concern, fueling debates over its implications and potential consequences for Lebanon and the broader region, Al-Akhbar Lebanese daily reported on Friday.
This hypothesis of Israel’s “non-withdrawal” has gained traction due to the consistent violations in areas south of the Litani River. Such violations include airstrikes, destruction of homes, and other aggressive acts. Observers suggest these actions reflect a strategic calculation by Israeli leadership, banking on Hezbollah’s apparent reluctance to reignite hostilities. Hezbollah’s commitment to upholding the ceasefire agreement, despite provocations, is seen by “Israel” as a factor emboldening such brazen aggression, Al-Akhbar’s Ali Haidar wrote.
A critical variable in the Israeli strategy appears to be the situation in Syria, which has impacted Hezbollah’s strategic depth. The fall of the Syrian regime and Israeli subsequent expansion into Syrian territories, occupying approximately 400 square kilometers, further demonstrates its offensive stance. This has occurred without any Syrian instigation and went by without a single military response, according to the report.
Israeli occupation forces set fire to a house in the town of Bani Hayyan, south of Lebanon.#Bani_Hayyan #Lebanon @qudsn pic.twitter.com/ZSBt4OIBAt
— ⚡️🌎 World News 🌐⚡️ (@ferozwala) January 3, 2025
Should “Israel” fail to withdraw by the 27th of January, it would again be violating the terms of the ceasefire agreement it signed, undermining the credibility of both the Lebanese state and the agreement’s supervisory committee. Such a scenario would erode trust in the Lebanese government among residents of southern Lebanon and prove without doubt the inefficacy of diplomacy in the face of the Israeli barbarism. All of this would again pit Hezbollah’s resistance efforts as the only legitimate means to enforce Israeli compliance, which may mean a reignition of war, Al-Akhbar reported.
Domestically, the persistence of the Israeli occupation complicates Lebanon’s political landscape. It greatly undermines arguments by resistance opponents that the Lebanese state, through international relations and diplomacy, can safeguard the nation without military resistance. The situation exposes weaknesses in Lebanon’s government, particularly in its handling of sovereignty and reconstruction efforts, Haidar added. He wrote that attempts by certain political leaders to shift blame onto the resistance, accusing it of monopolizing government decisions, further highlight Lebanon’s internal divisions.
For Hezbollah, according to the Lebanese writer and analyst, the occupation represents an ongoing challenge that demands strategic responses. While the group has not disclosed specific plans, its leadership maintains that Israeli occupation of Lebanese land has no future. Any silence on this issue, they argue, would misrepresent the post-agreement reality and embolden further Israeli transgressions.
The timing and nature of any response by the resistance will likely depend on its assessment of conditions on the ground, he added. However, Hezbollah has emphasized that its enhanced capabilities and experience since the liberation of the year 2000 make it well-prepared for renewed confrontations, that which was proven during the most recent battles, should they become necessary, according to Al-Akhbar.
As the situation develops, the prospect of continued Zionist occupation poses a significant risk on the integrity of the ceasefire agreement, and stands as proof to opponents of armed resistance that the only language the Zionist enemy understands is that of the sword, Al-Akbar’s Haidar concluded.
Source: Al-Akhbar Newspaper (Translated and edited by Al-Manar English Website Staff)