image source, Reuters
The day after Hezbollah responded to the assassination of Israel’s top military commander, Fouad Shukr, Hezbollah’s Al-Manar channel began its Monday news bulletin with the statement that the response “turns a page on the conflict” between Hezbollah and Israel.
Although the battle of narratives dominated the hours following the attacks by Israel and Hezbollah at dawn on Sunday, and continues to do so, both sides appeared to be in favor of to turn the page that had burdened them both, and not to rise towards a broad view. war
Israel’s military said on Sunday that its planes had preemptively bombed thousands of Hezbollah rocket launchers in southern Lebanon, following intelligence that the party was preparing to launch an attack on Israel.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah confirmed that its forces later launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel, in an “initial” response to the assassination of one of its top leaders last month. went, indicating that his plan is to target the base of Glilot, which is very close. to Tel Aviv, which was not blocked as Israel claims.
Sunday’s attack between Hezbollah and Israel came within the framework of a sharp escalation that has been going on for ten months, with an exchange of fire raising fears that a full-scale war will begin between the two sides.
Where is the truth?
“These issues in politics do not matter to the truth,” according to Dr. Joseph Bahout, President of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut.
Bahout says: “What matters is what the parties want to consider as truth. “
“It is in the interest of both parties to remain silent about what really happened and for each party to say that it got what it wanted,” according to Bahout.
The controversy over the statement centered on Hezbollah’s assessment of the attack. Although his supporters believed that the operation had strategic dimensions and important implications for the party’s military capabilities, his opponents underestimated the attack to the extent that they were of the an idea that had no effect at all.
image source, Reuters
The long wait for Hezbollah’s response to Shukr’s assassination showed signs of frustration in the mood of the party’s followers, and its opponents began to take advantage of it to undermine its image.
According to Bahout: “The party ended the case in the best way.
But what happened on Sunday, despite its various accounts and assessments, has drawn attention back to the main front between Hezbollah and Israel, which, in part, has been controlled for more than ten months on rules “certain and controlled”.
The United States, Britain, and Western and Arab countries classify Hezbollah as a “terrorist organization,” while successive Lebanese governments consider it a “legitimate struggle against Israel,” which, according to of the United Nations, still in the Lebanese territory.
How long?
As time passes, the opposition’s control is tested and its rules of engagement become more fragile.
This is perhaps the most dangerous topic in the medium term, and the question behind everything that is happening is what the border region will look like after the “support war,” the h -those military operations aimed at the north of Israel from the south of Lebanon, which is Hezbollah. calling the opposition “Gaza Support”.
What is meant here is the nature and form of security control over that region in a way that satisfies Hezbollah and reassures Israel, in a way that facilitates the return of 60,000 residents of the north to the their homes after being displaced as a result of the ongoing war. there, and on the Lebanese side the number of displaced people exceeded 110,000.
While the Lebanese official talks about how he kept returning to Resolution No. 1701 of the United Nations, which ended the war in July 2006 and was the framework in southern Lebanon until the beginning of the Gaza war, Israel says it will not accept it. return to what was before October 8. the past.
However, this alarming issue has been shelved for the time being, as the focus is now on reaching a ceasefire in Gaza as the first stage of the solution, and preventing a major escalation which will lead to an all-out war, according to observers.
In this context, what happened yesterday could be a sign that not all parties want a “total war,” which could be related to the calculation of Iran’s response and the Houthi response too.
Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah had threatened Israel after Shukr’s assassination, saying, “Israel has crossed all red lines, and the resistance response to the attack on Dahiya and the assassination of Fouad Shukr is certain.”
Bahout explains, “Netanyahu could have used Sunday’s attack as a justification or an excuse to launch a war if he intended and was willing to do so, but it is clear that the various parties – the United States, Iran, Hezbollah, and Israel – fear of all war.”
Shukr was killed in an Israeli attack that targeted him in the southern suburbs of Beirut, where Hezbollah has a large influence, and Israel claimed responsibility for his killing. Less than 24 hours later, Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh was shot dead inside his residence in Tehran, with Iran and Hamas accusing Israel of murdering him, despite Israel does not claim responsibility for the work.
As for the effect of Sunday’s incident on Hezbollah’s restoration of the balance of deterrence it lost after Israel’s assassination of Lashkar outside the engagement zone, this is still subject to Israel targeting the south bank of Beirut, which, if it happens. , then being a new chapter with new calculations and analyses.
#Hezbollah #Israel #Return #rules #disciplined #engagement #Sundays #attacks
2024-08-26 18:14:19
