The Exhilaration of First Strikes: In Lebanon, Israel Repeats the Mistakes of 2006

Does the occupying army really think it has dealt a blow to Hezbollah’s military capabilities?

By Ibrahim al-Amin, Editor-in-Chief of the Lebanese Daily Al-Akhbar

We thank Resistance News Unfiltered for their translation and regular updates to GlobalSouth and state that we appeciate their work.  We also wish them unbounded strength!

—

In a climate of tension, it’s challenging to grasp what is truly unfolding. Anxiety leads nowhere. What matters is to take a deep breath and observe the events to understand their nature, causes, how they transpired, and where we are headed next.

The enemy hasn’t suddenly decided to open fire. Let’s be clear: it was we who opened fire in support of Gaza. And when we did, we didn’t act like neighborhood kids seeking revenge for an insult against a loved one. No, we did it with full awareness, fully cognizant that the essence of the Resistance’s actions and its primary objective is to work towards the elimination of the occupying entity. This goal may seem unrealistic to many, but it is firmly entrenched in the minds of some in the region, particularly Hezbollah. Achieving this objective naturally requires close cooperation with the people of this land, that is, the Palestinians. This is how the relationship between the Resistance in Lebanon and those fighting the enemy within Palestine has developed. Therefore, anyone who believed that the Resistance in Lebanon would stand idly by in the face of events in Gaza is either naive or blind.

The Resistance’s strategy on the northern front is based on intensifying the war of attrition against the occupying army, preventing it from concentrating all its efforts on Gaza and its people while simultaneously eroding its home front. This unprecedented operation in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict has forced nearly a quarter of a million settlers to live in insecurity. Half of them have been completely displaced from the settlements, while the other half have endured extremely difficult conditions since October 8. Throughout this period, the confrontation has imposed clear rules, preventing the enemy from retaliating beyond the limits set by the Resistance. Hezbollah has paid a high price, both in human and logistical losses, and has had to manage the situation of approximately 100,000 Lebanese displaced from frontline villages. For over eleven months, this plan has been effective, despite the enemy’s efforts. When it realized that a ceasefire in the north would only be achievable with a ceasefire in the south, the enemy decided to change the rules of the game.

For several weeks now, Netanyahu and numerous political and military leaders have recognized that the war in Gaza has reached a stalemate. There was no possibility of recovering prisoners or effectively eliminating Hamas. Consequently, they added the issue of the north to their list of objectives. There was no longer any operational chance of recovering prisoners or effectively eliminating Hamas. It became necessary to revise the “list of objectives” by introducing the northern front into the equation. Netanyahu chose a moment when no opposition could emerge, either within the government or beyond. Even those who opposed his policy regarding Gaza accused him of weakness in the face of Hezbollah, which facilitated his double maneuver: silencing the debate on Gaza and justifying the continuation of the war with the objective of repatriating settlers.

The United States is counting on domestic pressure to escalate the pressure on Hezbollah to cease its support for Gaza.

For the record, Netanyahu wasn’t attempting to evade an agreement regarding Gaza; rather, he aimed to divert attention from his broader project in the region (we will soon revisit the details of the plans Israel is developing in cooperation with Arab states and Western actors for a lasting occupation of the Gaza Strip, particularly in the area extending from the south of Netzarim to the north). Today, however, he acts as if he possesses sufficient domestic legitimacy to wage war against Lebanon, benefiting from American support and the semi-public backing of his Arab allies, who reproach Israel for its past failures to eliminate Hezbollah.

When Netanyahu decided to alter the rules of engagement in the north, he brought nothing new to the table. He merely followed the same principle he had adopted in Gaza, believing that military pressure alone would suffice to make the adversary retreat. However, he has introduced a dangerous element to our front: the enemy, in collaboration with the United States and European and Arab countries, is attempting to involve Lebanese groups and certain Syrian opponents in a campaign they hope will manifest as an uprising demanding a ceasefire from the Resistance. We will increasingly hear voices proclaiming that Lebanon has no interest in “supporting Gaza,” with some factions asserting that Lebanon is not concerned with what happens in Palestine anyway.

But Israel is not always foolish. Drawing from its experiences in Lebanon, both concerning the capabilities of the Resistance and its allies to whom it has provided significant support, Israel knows that defeating Hezbollah requires far more than mere declarations and slogans. This has prompted the enemy to initiate a specific and progressive security and military program, employing intense firepower to achieve the following objectives:

Firstly, to inflict severe strikes on the military leadership of the party and attempt to constrain Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah through what Israel views as a process of “cutting off his arms.” This operation is based on the enemy’s belief that Sayyed Nasrallah must experience a significant shock and a loss of equilibrium for the party to be compelled to retreat.

Secondly, it aims to convey to the party, the Resistance, and the public that Israel is capable of achieving any objective it desires, and that it is not restricted to localized operations, but can execute large-scale strikes like those carried out in recent hours, intending to provoke what the enemy perceives as an earthquake affecting all Hezbollah structures, resulting in significant pressure that would compel the party to withdraw.

Israel’s problem lies not in its misunderstanding of the Resistance, but in its persistent misinterpretation of the nature of its enemy and its centers of strength.

Thirdly, the enemy employs the principle of “shock and awe,” through brutal bombing operations like the one conducted yesterday, with a clear intention to strike directly at homes and residential centers where civilians are present, to kill civilian party leaders in the villages, and to terrorize the surviving inhabitants… All of this aims to create confusion, accompanied by the displacement of around half a million people from their homes and villages, before mediators approach us with terms of surrender, wielding the same slogan: “What do you care about Gaza? Cease the support front, allow your families to return to their villages, and let’s engage in arrangements that will enable Israel to guarantee the return of settlers to their homes.”

Let’s return to what has transpired in the last 24 hours, which have been marked by events whose nature must be examined before discussing their consequences. It is not excessive for anyone concerned by these events to recall or consult the archives, rereading and reviewing everything the enemy did between July 12 and 16, 2006. It includes correspondence that extends beyond mere statements to the enemy’s expectations regarding the outcomes of its military strikes. Although the current wave differs in terms of new technologies, complex security operations, or intensity of firepower, enemy leaders spoke last night about the destruction of Resistance capabilities, claiming they were on the verge of victory. By grossly misinterpreting the nature of the Resistance’s response yesterday, which launched salvos of rockets against settlements in the heart of occupied Palestine, Israeli leaders are repeating the same mistakes they made during the 2006 conflict.

What is essential to understand is that the enemy lacks creativity outside the logic of mass murder. It has not learned its lesson, nor does it grasp that the key lies in building a feasible strategy. It remains the same monster we’ve known since the establishment of the entity, and we have come to understand it better through everything it has done since 1978. Yet, it continues to gamble, believing it can impose the terms of surrender it proposes to the Resistance.

We know that the enemy is preparing for further brutal operations and gearing up for actions where it will showcase its expertise in commando operations, precision assassinations, sudden bombings, and rapid offensive maneuvers. It can maintain its warplanes in the air 24/7 and enjoys American support that extends beyond just weapons supply, including intelligence support and collaboration on operational plans. It hints that at certain times, it opens the door for intermediaries (all carrying a singular Israeli message) to force the Resistance to accept conditions that would guarantee the separation of the Lebanese front from Gaza and pave the way for different arrangements in the south.

One issue the Resistance faces today is that there are people in Lebanon who coexist with it but still fail to comprehend its foundations and decision-making processes. As for the enemy’s issue, it extends beyond an inability to recognize Hezbollah’s nature; it consists of a failure to realize that what it must do is not merely count the isolated shots fired from certain points of resistance, but genuinely prepare for something it has never encountered before, where it will confront what it never imagined. At that point, it will be compelled to feverishly seek explanations for its soldiers and settlers before pursuing an intermediary to knock on the door of the Resistance day and night, pleading for a ceasefire!

Donate to support this work and subscribe to get around censorship