Netanyahu and Erdogan Exchange Sharp Accusations Amid Rising Regional Tensions

Netanyahu and Erdogan Exchange Sharp Accusations Amid Rising Regional Tensions

    Wednesday, June 10, 2026   No comments

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan traded sharp accusations on Wednesday, highlighting deepening tensions between Israel and Türkiye as regional conflicts continue to expand beyond Gaza.

The latest war of words erupted after Erdogan accused Israel of pursuing policies that threaten not only Palestinians but also the broader Middle East, including neighboring Syria and Lebanon. The Turkish leader also renewed his criticism of what he described as Israel's "Greater Israel" ambitions, warning that Israeli military actions could eventually undermine Türkiye's own security.

In response, Netanyahu launched a personal attack on Erdogan, describing him as an "antisemitic dictator" who "supports Hamas" and "oppresses his own people." The Israeli prime minister added that Erdogan was "the last person who can lecture the State of Israel on morality."

The exchange marks another escalation in the increasingly hostile relationship between the two regional powers, whose ties have deteriorated significantly since the outbreak of the Gaza war.

Erdogan compared the international community's response to Israel's actions to the world's failure to stop Adolf Hitler during the Second World War. Referring to Netanyahu as the "Butcher of Gaza," the Turkish president argued that global powers were responding with the same silence and inaction that had enabled historical atrocities.

He further warned that the consequences of the conflict could extend well beyond the immediate region.

"If Israel's recklessness does not come to an end, all of humanity will bear the consequences," Erdogan said.

Speaking at a public event, Erdogan argued that Israeli military operations in Syria and Lebanon had reached a level that directly affected Turkish national security.

"The attacks by Netanyahu and his criminal network against Syria and Lebanon have reached a point that threatens not only these two sister countries, but now also Türkiye," Erdogan said.

"Türkiye's security begins not only in Hatay, but also in Aleppo, Damascus, and Beirut."

The Turkish president emphasized that Ankara would not accept what it sees as attempts to reshape the political and territorial realities of neighboring states through military force.

"We will not tolerate any attempt to impose a new reality on the ground in countries that are our sisters, nor will we turn a blind eye to aggression directed against them," he said.

Erdogan also reiterated concerns frequently voiced by Turkish officials and commentators regarding what they describe as the "Greater Israel" project, a term used by critics to suggest Israeli territorial ambitions extending beyond its internationally recognized borders.

"We are fully aware of the ultimate goal behind the 'Greater Israel' illusion," Erdogan said. "With God's help, we will never allow this to happen."

Netanyahu rejected Erdogan's criticism and defended Israel's military strategy, stating that Israel would continue taking "forceful action against Iran and its proxies" throughout the region. Israeli officials have repeatedly argued that military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere are necessary to counter threats posed by Iranian-backed groups. But recently, Israel made statements that go beyond Iran, arguing that after defeating Iran and its allies, Israel must deal with an emerging "Sunni Axis". 

The latest confrontation underscores the widening geopolitical divide between Ankara and Jerusalem. While Türkiye has become one of Israel's most vocal critics during the Gaza conflict, Israel has increasingly accused Erdogan's government of supporting Hamas and fueling regional instability through its rhetoric.

As fighting and political tensions continue across multiple fronts in the Middle East, the public dispute between Netanyahu and Erdogan reflects a broader struggle over the region's future security order and the competing visions advanced by its most influential powers.

Pakistani and Lebanese military chiefs meet amid ongoing Israeli aggression

Pakistani and Lebanese military chiefs meet amid ongoing Israeli aggression

    Tuesday, June 09, 2026   No comments

The commander-in-chief of the Lebanese Armed Forces, General Rodolphe Haykal, met with Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, at the military General Headquarters in Rawalpindi today. The high-level talks focused on the rapidly evolving regional security environment, bilateral defense cooperation, and strengthening institutional linkages between the two workforces. The meeting takes place as Islamabad continues to spearhead delicate mediation efforts between the US and Iran to secure a comprehensive regional settlement.

The defense summit coincides with a severe surge in Israeli hostilities, which have persistently undermined diplomatic stabilization initiatives. Despite a recently announced so-called 'ceasefire,' Israel has bombed Lebanese territory over 3,500 times since April alone.

Since the escalation ignited on 2 March, aggressive Israeli bombardments have claimed the lives of more than 3,600 people, wounded over 11,000 others, and forcibly displaced a staggering 1.6 million Lebanese citizens. During the session, Field Marshal Munir reaffirmed Pakistan's historical commitments to Lebanon's sovereignty and stability, emphasizing Islamabad's intent to expand training and strategic collaboration with Beirut's state military.

During the meeting today, General Haykal also commended the operational excellence of the Pakistani armed forces and their enduring contributions to regional stability, notably through Pakistan's long-standing deployment of UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon.

In the complex and volatile geopolitical landscape of the Levant in 2026, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) face profound security challenges. Amidst a severe surge in regional hostilities, some Lebanese leadership, especially among the military officers, is increasingly seeking strategic partnerships with other Muslim states, most notably Pakistan. This military pivot is driven by a growing sense in Beirut that traditional, Western-mediated diplomatic channels have failed to curb Israeli military actions, halt territorial expansion, or secure the protection of Lebanese sovereignty.

The rationale for this shift is rooted in the perceived ineffectiveness of recent diplomatic initiatives. Despite US-sponsored meetings between Lebanese and Israeli representatives in Washington, D.C., Israeli military operations have continued unabated. These operations have resulted in the continued occupation of Lebanese land and, most recently, the deaths of Lebanese army members. Furthermore, the diplomatic landscape in neighboring Syria has not yielded the expected stabilizing effects. Although the head of the new Syrian regime, Sharaa, recently met with US President Trump at the White House and maintains favorable relations with the US administration, Israel has simultaneously expanded its military incursions into Syrian territory, resulting in significant casualties. For some Lebanese leaders these developments underscore a stark reality: conventional diplomatic appeals have not produced a cessation of violence, let alone a sustainable peace.

In this context, Lebanon’s outreach to Pakistan represents a calculated effort to cultivate alternative sources of geopolitical leverage. Pakistan, as the world’s only nuclear-armed Muslim state, holds unique strategic weight in the Islamic world and global geopolitics. The recent high-level meeting in Rawalpindi between LAF Commander-in-Chief General Rodolphe Haykal and Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, highlights this emerging reality.

The underlying strategic calculus is that Israel will only halt its military campaigns and withdraw from occupied territories if confronted with a formidable, multifaceted counterweight. 

By fostering ties with Pakistan—and by extension, leveraging Pakistan’s ongoing, delicate mediation efforts between the US and Iran for a comprehensive regional settlement—Lebanon aims to build a coalition of influence. This alignment with Pakistani and Iranian-based leverage is intended to pressure Israel into recalculating its military strategy, thereby forcing an end to the violence and facilitating the liberation of occupied lands in both Lebanon and Syria.

Ultimately, the Lebanese military’s engagement with Pakistan signifies a profound shift in regional strategy. Faced with the limitations of US-sponsored diplomacy and the continued expansion of hostilities, Lebanon is actively diversifying its security partnerships. By aligning with a major Muslim military power, Beirut hopes to secure the necessary geopolitical leverage to protect its sovereignty, halt the humanitarian crisis, and achieve a lasting resolution to the conflict.

Statement by the [Sunni] Islamic Group (Jama'a al-Islamiya) in Lebanon about Washington Agreement

Statement by the [Sunni] Islamic Group (Jama'a al-Islamiya) in Lebanon about Washington Agreement

    Thursday, June 04, 2026   No comments

Translation of the Statement by the [Sunni] Islamic Group (Jama'a al-Islamiya) in Lebanon about Washington Agreement:

After three months of the Israeli war of aggression against Lebanon, and the widespread destruction, forced displacement, assassinations, and attacks on civilians and infrastructure it has left behind, and following the statement issued today from Washington—which may represent an entry point toward stopping the Israeli war machine but remains shrouded in considerable ambiguity and contains broad and vague language open to multiple interpretations, raising legitimate concerns about attempts to circumvent Lebanon’s national rights—the Islamic Group wishes to affirm the following:

First: Any understanding or agreement that does not clearly and explicitly stipulate an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire, an end to all attacks and violations by air, land, and sea, an end to the policy of assassinations, the complete and unconditional withdrawal from all occupied Lebanese territory, and the release of prisoners and detainees, cannot be considered a just or sustainable settlement. Rather, it remains an incomplete agreement that provides the enemy with another opportunity to maneuver, gain time, and continue its aggressive plans.

Second: The Islamic Group rejects any formula or understanding that would lead to the establishment of buffer zones or security arrangements that undermine Lebanese sovereignty, place any part of Lebanese territory under direct or indirect tutelage, or turn Lebanon into an arena for settling regional and international scores. It affirms that the state's sovereignty over all its territory and its freedom of national decision-making are fixed rights that are not subject to bargaining or diminution under any pretext or title.

Third: The Islamic Group calls on the Lebanese government to handle this phase with the highest degree of responsibility and transparency, to inform the Lebanese people of the reality of what is being negotiated, and to reject any clause that infringes upon national sovereignty, threatens civil peace, or grants the Israeli enemy security or political gains at the expense of Lebanon and the rights of its people.

Fourth: We reaffirm our full support for the Lebanese Army as the national institution that unites the country and guarantees national unity and civil peace. We call for strengthening its military and logistical capabilities and enabling it to carry out its national role throughout Lebanese territory. We also reject any attempt to involve it in ambiguous security arrangements or understandings that the enemy could exploit to achieve its objectives or provoke divisions among the Lebanese.

Fifth: We have repeatedly affirmed that addressing major national issues, foremost among them the question of weapons, cannot be achieved through external pressure or international dictates. Rather, it must come through comprehensive and responsible national dialogue leading to a national defense strategy that protects Lebanon, preserves its sovereignty, safeguards its resources, and secures for its people the right to security, stability, and dignity.

Sixth: We warn against any projects or understandings proposed for Lebanon under attractive slogans while their real aim is to weaken the country, isolate it from its surroundings, and leave it politically and militarily vulnerable, thereby granting the enemy an opportunity to reorganize its position and prepare for a new aggression at a time of its choosing.

"Seventh: The suffering of the displaced and those forced from their homes must be among the highest priorities of the Lebanese state and its institutions. Accordingly, we call for the provision of all requirements for shelter, relief, and social care in a manner that preserves the dignity of citizens uprooted from their homes by the aggression. We also call on the Ministry of Social Affairs and the relevant authorities to improve their performance and strengthen their human and financial capacities in line with the scale of the crisis and its consequences. At the same time, we reject any exploitation of the displacement crisis to stir tensions or undermine civil peace.

Eighth: We call upon all Lebanese to uphold their national unity, place the national interest above all other considerations, reject all forms of incitement, strife, and division, and thwart the enemy's attempts to undermine internal stability and tear apart the national fabric in service of its projects and agendas.

Lebanon, which confronted the aggression through the steadfastness of its people, the sacrifices of its sons and daughters, and the unity of its national positions, is capable of overcoming this sensitive stage, provided it adheres to its national constants—foremost among them full sovereignty over its land and decision-making—and rejects any infringement upon its legitimate national rights.

 

The Powder Keg of the Levant--How Sectarian Power Structures Guarantee Perpetual Instability

The Powder Keg of the Levant--How Sectarian Power Structures Guarantee Perpetual Instability

    Tuesday, September 02, 2025   No comments

In the ancient lands of the Levant, where history is measured in millennia, a modern curse condemns nations to a purgatory of weakness. This is not a curse of geography or resources, but one of design—a political architecture built not on the bedrock of principled compromise and shared national vision, but on the shifting sands of sectarian appeasement. The fates of Lebanon and Syria stand as stark, bloody testaments to a brutal truth: a government forged in the fire of sectarian civil war is destined to be weak, illegitimate, and a prelude to the next conflict.

One would think that healing and reconciliation should follow three decades of peace. Yet Lebanon, whose 15-year civil war ended 35 years ago, is a nation frozen in time, a ghost haunting its own corpse. It is not a healed nation but a palimpsest of its former conflicts, its power structures meticulously drawn along the very sectarian lines that once tore it apart.

This is a country still ruled, in effect, by unelected leaders. The current president was appointed after years of vacuum, his ascent only possible by twisting the constitution to bypass a rule prohibiting active military officers from political office. The prime minister, a respected former international judge, was less elected than selected, installed through backroom compromise and heavy-handed pressure from foreign capitals like Washington, Paris, and Riyadh. Even the speakership, held by an elected MP, is shackled to a sectarian quota, its legitimacy perpetually questioned.

This patched-together entity now dares to act as a legitimate government, attempting to change the very practices its own flawed existence perpetuates. But a house divided against itself cannot stand, and a government built on sectarian compromise cannot govern. It will either fracture under the weight of its own contradictions or push ahead with its agenda, inevitably alienating one faction or another and risking a return to the civil war days it was designed to prevent. In Lebanon, the peace is the war, continued by other means.

This tragic model is not unique. Libya, shattered since 2011, is a mosaic of rival fiefdoms. A weak, internationally recognized government controls the capital, while the rest of the country answers to another regime in Benghazi or to autonomous tribal forces. There is no central authority, only a precarious and violent stalemate.

But it is Syria that presents the most chilling and recent case study. After a decade of brutal war exacerbated by a proxy conflict involving regional and global powers, the Baathist regime finally collapsed nearly a year ago. The rebels, aided by Turkey and Qatar and spearheaded by factions with extremist ideologies, seized their moment amidst the regional instability sparked by the war in Gaza.

Their victory, however, was merely the prelude to the next chapter of failure. The new Damascus regime, finding its authority challenged, has already resorted to the same tactics of its predecessor: massacres in Alawite and Druze regions, sowing fear among all ethnic and religious minorities. This has not consolidated power; it has shattered it further. The powerful Kurds, along with other groups, are now arming themselves for survival, refusing to hand their weapons to a central government they see as just another sectarian predator.

The outcome is inevitable. Syria is rapidly descending into the Lebanese and Libyan model—a central government that lacks both the legitimacy to command respect and the power to enforce its will. It rules not by consent but by fear, and fear is a fuel that quickly burns out, leaving only the ash of resentment.

When you add Iran to the mix, a country that was destabilized by US invasion and governed through a power-sharing arrangement still, the entire Levant thus becomes a powder keg, its nations condemned to cycles of violence by a refusal to transcend sectarian and tribal identities. The power of the gun, mistaken for political power, creates only a brutal illusion of control. True legitimacy is not seized through the barrel of a rifle or assigned by religious quota; it is earned through the principled compromise of a social contract that serves all citizens equally.

Without this fundamental transformation—without building states for all citizens rather than fiefdoms for sects—the next ten years will not bring peace. They will bring more transformative, and likely armed, events. The civilians of this ancient region will be lucky to witness change that is not delivered by a bullet. For now, their destiny remains held hostage by the very structures claiming to save them, guaranteeing that instability is not a phase, but a permanent condition.

The U.S. Problem in Lebanon and Syria

The U.S. Problem in Lebanon and Syria

    Monday, August 25, 2025   No comments

The United States’ position in Lebanon suffers from a fundamental contradiction. On the one hand, Washington insists that all weapons in Lebanon must be under the control of a strong central government. On the other hand, in neighboring Syria, the U.S. promotes a weak federal system that allows minorities—such as the Druze in the south and the Kurds in the north—to maintain their own weapons and autonomous security structures.

Logically, if the principle is that all arms should be monopolized by the state, then that principle must apply everywhere. By carving out exceptions in Syria under the pretext of “protecting minorities” and “preserving diversity,” the U.S. sets a precedent that can just as easily apply to Lebanon—a country already deeply divided along ethnic, religious, and sectarian fault lines. Lebanon fought a devastating 15-year civil war and still struggles to forge a national identity that transcends its sectarian divisions.

The deeper problem is that neither Syria nor Lebanon currently has a government that can claim full legitimacy. In Syria, today’s de facto rulers are not the product of popular mandate; they are rulers by force of war, caretakers until a fair election and an inclusive system produce a legitimate government. Lebanon, likewise, is governed not by leaders with genuine popular legitimacy but by a fragile power-sharing arrangement codified in the Ta’if Agreement. This deal distributed power along sectarian lines—giving the presidency to Christians, the prime minister’s office to Sunnis, and the speakership of parliament to Shia. It is, in effect, a three-headed system where no faction can claim full authority. Lebanon has even gone years without a president at all, underscoring the fragility of the arrangement.

A government that lacks legitimacy cannot be strong unless it imposes its will by force—and that is precisely why no group in Lebanon will truly give up its weapons. The same logic applies in Syria: until a representative system is built, demands for disarmament will be met with suspicion and resistance.

The bottom line is this: a country where power is historically acquired through war and violence cannot be remade into a cohesive state simply by granting a central government exclusive control over weapons. The evidence from recent history is overwhelming:

• Libya remains fragmented into three regions, each governed separately.

• Yemen, despite years of Saudi bombardment designed to enforce central authority, is divided into multiple competing power centers.

• Iraq, even after more than $3 trillion in U.S. investment and years of institution-building, still has a weak central government overshadowed by regional and sectarian power brokers. When ISIS surged in 2014, it was not the Iraqi state that rallied, but a new paramilitary force created by a fatwa from Shia religious authorities.

Countries torn apart by war rarely reunify quickly under strong central governments. More often, they remain weak or fragmented for decades. Even Germany—with its long history of national unity—took decades to reunify after division.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. attempt to engineer a powerful central government in Lebanon, while simultaneously promoting decentralization in Syria, is incoherent. No Lebanese Shia faction will willingly surrender its weapons to a government it views as illegitimate and incapable of protecting them—especially when extremist groups across the border in Syria have massacred minorities for not being Sunni.

If Washington continues to push for a centralized Lebanese government without real sovereignty or inclusive legitimacy, it risks destabilizing one of the most volatile regions in the world. The result may not be stability at all, but rather the ignition of another civil war in Lebanon—unless, of course, that is the unspoken objective of U.S. policy.

Convergence of interests between Trump and Biden may result in an agreement to end the war in Gaza

Convergence of interests between Trump and Biden may result in an agreement to end the war in Gaza

    Wednesday, November 27, 2024   No comments

Trump has been consistent with his demand that "finishes the job in Gaza quickly." In fact, he wants the war to end before he takes office so that he can focus on his domestic agenda which is expected to take most of his energy. Biden, who has been involved in a balancing act of supporting Israel and listening to young Americans most of whom see the war in Gaza as genocide, to enable his party to win elections is now free to focus on his personal legacy and achieve something in the Middle East. This convergence of interest may lead to an end of the war in Gaza, which will bring down the level of tension in the region.

With a temporary ceasefire in Lebanon in place, Biden is now looking to end the war in Gaza, which will reduce violence in the region. To this end, Biden will launch a new push on Wednesday to reach a ceasefire in Gaza and release hostages, after Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a truce in Lebanon, his national security adviser Jake Sullivan said.

The truce that began early Wednesday in southern Lebanon means Hezbollah is no longer fighting in support of Hamas in Gaza. It will increase pressure on the Palestinian movement to accept a ceasefire and release the hostages, Sullivan told MSNBC.

Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just before the US- and French-brokered truce with Hezbollah was announced Tuesday and they agreed to try again to reach a deal on Gaza, Sullivan said.

“President Biden intends to begin this work today by engaging his envoys with Turkey, Qatar, Egypt and other actors in the region,” he said.

“We believe this is the beginning of an opportunity for a more stable Middle East where Israel’s security is assured and the interests of the United States are secure,” he added.

The agreement between Israel and Hezbollah was seen as an achievement for Biden as he prepares to leave the White House and hand over power to Donald Trump on January 20.

In parallel with announcing the agreement on Tuesday, Biden said that the United States, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and Israel will again seek a ceasefire in Gaza, where Israel is still fighting a war against Hamas after an October 7, 2023 attack on its territory.

Biden confirmed that Washington will also push for a long-discussed agreement to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Media review: reactions to the ceasefire in Lebanon

Israeli media focused on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's announcement that the Security Cabinet had agreed to a ceasefire with Lebanon under US mediation. While politicians opposed the agreement and considered it a surrender, analysts and journalists welcomed it, saying that there were political and military circumstances that pushed for signing it with all its negatives and loopholes, as they described them.

Kan 11 political affairs correspondent Suleiman Masouda said, "There are circumstances that are not only political, but also operational (military) that push for signing this agreement. We are entering the winter season, and the United States has not been supplying Israel with all the ammunition it requests for a while now, and there is a broad arms export ban."

Doron Kadosh, military affairs correspondent for Army Radio, described the agreement as "bad and with negatives and loopholes," but said that the army is demanding the agreement.

However, the Israeli correspondent explained that "there are immediate positives regarding ammunition and the issue of reserve soldiers who are collapsing under the pressure of military service and are no longer able to endure, in addition to the need to focus efforts on the Gaza Strip and recover the kidnapped soldiers."

For his part, Channel 13 military affairs analyst Alon Ben David explained that they in the security establishment acknowledge that the agreement with Lebanon "is not an ideal agreement, but from the beginning the army did not claim that it would eliminate Hezbollah's military power, because that would mean occupying all of Lebanon."

Former head of the Military Intelligence Division, Amos Malka, said that the war in Lebanon could end in three ways: the first is: "with the proposed agreement, the second with a security belt, and the third with a war until the last breath in an attempt - as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said - to eliminate Hezbollah."

He pointed out that the third possibility is not possible "because it will be a different war, and I do not think we have international support, and I do not think we have military plans for that."

Moshe Saada, a member of the Knesset for the Likud party, commented on the subject of the agreement with Lebanon by saying: "The situation is very complicated, and there are threats to ban the supply of weapons to us, and there are threats of UN resolutions against Israel."

As for the head of the "Israel Beiteinu" party, Avigdor Lieberman, he said, "This is a short ceasefire for 5 or 6 years, until the Fourth Lebanon War breaks out," noting that within 5 or 6 years "they (Hezbollah) will have 40,000 drones in Baalbek."

For his part, Yair Golan, leader of the opposition Democrats party and a former deputy chief of staff, described the agreement as “an interim agreement with clear justification, which we reached with a very exhausted army.”

"Hasty and irresponsible decision"... Anger in Israel over ceasefire agreement with Lebanon

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented the agreement in the context of what he said were “unprecedented achievements” made by Israel over the past year of war on seven fronts.

He said that Israel had set Hezbollah back decades and that it was no longer the same group it once was, according to the BBC.

Netanyahu indicated that the ceasefire would also allow Israel to “focus on the Iranian threat,” stressing that his country would retain full military freedom to confront any new threat from Hezbollah.

But Netanyahu’s political rivals, and even some of his allies, view the agreement as “de facto surrender.”

A poll conducted yesterday indicated that more than 80 percent of Netanyahu’s support base opposes the agreement, and that residents of northern Israel, who have been evacuated in large numbers due to Hezbollah strikes in the area, are also angry.

In Israel, the deal was deeply divided. One poll showed that 37 percent of Israelis support the ceasefire, 32 percent oppose it, and 31 percent do not know that there is an agreement at all.

Shelly, an English teacher in the town of Shlomi, said the ceasefire was “an irresponsible, hasty political decision.”

Rona Valenci, who was evacuated from Kibbutz Kfar Giladi in northern Israel on October 8 last year, said she wanted to return home and that a ceasefire was necessary, but the idea of ​​Lebanese residents returning to villages near Kfar Giladi, such as the Lebanese village of Adaisseh, gave her “a sense of anxiety and fear”.

“The only thing I can hope for is that Hezbollah does not infiltrate such nearby villages and build a new network there,” she said.

“There is nothing real that can make me feel safe except for these villages to be completely wiped out, and for no one to be there.”

The BBC said it had spoken to many Israelis who believe Netanyahu should continue the war in Lebanon, and wonder why the prime minister, who has vowed to continue fighting in Gaza until “complete victory”, would sign a ceasefire in Lebanon?!

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir opposed the agreement, calling it a “historic mistake”.

“This is not a ceasefire, it is a return to the concept of quiet for quiet, and we have already seen where this leads,” Ben-Gvir wrote in a post on the X website explaining his opposition to the agreement. He predicted that “in the end we will need to return to Lebanon again.” In contrast, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich asserted that “this agreement may guarantee Israel’s security forever.”

Le Figaro: 4 reasons why Israel accepted a ceasefire in Lebanon

Le Figaro reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a ceasefire in Lebanon on Tuesday, saying that the duration of the agreement depends on what happens there, and asked about the military and diplomatic issues that could explain this agreement. To shed light on this, the French newspaper met with researcher David Khalfa, co-director of the North Africa and Middle East Observatory, and responsible for the "geopolitical meetings" of the Jean Jaurès Foundation, to decode this announcement.

Experts to Asharq Al-Awsat: Ceasefire agreement does not prevent Hezbollah from returning to what it was

So far, the contents of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah are still unclear. Does the agreement, which appears to have been divided between Hezbollah and Israel, mean that Hezbollah’s military hand will remain free in Lebanon, despite talk of transforming it into a political party?

Hezbollah will continue its policies

Asharq Al-Awsat posed questions to two American researchers regarding the expected agreement to be signed. Michael Rubin, a senior researcher at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, expressed his fear that “Hezbollah will continue to maintain its capabilities to continue its policies,” while David Daoud, a senior researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, said that “although the language of the agreement seems stronger than the language of Resolution 1701,” it does not seem sufficient to stop Hezbollah’s activities in the future.

The draft ceasefire agreement includes a 60-day transitional period during which the Israeli army will withdraw from southern Lebanon, the Lebanese army will deploy in areas near the border, and Hezbollah will move its heavy weapons north of the Litani River. The deal includes a US-led oversight committee to monitor implementation and address violations.

The ICC and Hezbollah’s Money

“It is true that there has been significant progress, but it is unfortunate that the ICC’s accusations against Netanyahu have shifted these matters in another direction, forcing some mediators in the region to halt direct visits to Jerusalem and prevent Netanyahu from traveling to third countries,” said Michael Rubin. “My greatest concern about Hezbollah is that its financial and criminal network in Africa and South America remains intact. If Hezbollah turns its guns on the rest of the Lebanese, it will have the financial means to support itself,” Rubin added.

According to the agreement, the United States agreed to give Israel a letter of guarantees that includes support for Israeli military action against imminent threats from Lebanese territory, and to take measures to disrupt operations such as the re-establishment of Hezbollah’s military presence near the border, or the smuggling of heavy weapons. Under the agreement, Israel will take such action after consulting with the United States, if the Lebanese army does not deal with the threat.

Israel’s approval is incomprehensible

David Daoud says: “Although the language of the agreement seems stronger than the language of international resolution (1701), the Netanyahu government’s approval of this type of agreement cannot be explained, as long as international law gives the right to any country that is attacked, or sees that there is an imminent attack on it, to respond to it.” He pointed out that “Hezbollah’s breach of the agreement without causing a new imminent war is possible, as it can, for example, build a weapons factory that does not, according to the text of the agreement, constitute a direct threat to Israel.”

“The agreement guarantees Hezbollah’s continued dominance and control over Lebanon in light of the Lebanese people’s inability to confront it, and the Lebanese army’s inability to enter into a war with it, and cause a new civil war,” he said. Daoud believes that “the new reality resulting from the International Criminal Court’s decision against Netanyahu may complicate matters, and the internal Israeli situation may put him in a predicament, which may expose the agreement to collapse... Despite that, we are facing a 60-day agreement, which may give the new Trump administration (credibility) that it has entered an era free of wars in the Middle East, but nothing guarantees that it will not explode again in the coming years if its causes are not (removed).”

Did Israel's war in Lebanon achieve its goals?

Israeli leaders argued that the war was necessary to remove the threat of Hezbollah so that Israelis can return to their settlements in the north. The ceasefire agreement does not include any stipulation that could realize those aims. Hezbollah will not disarm, and at best will be expected to limit its presence south of Litani river. However, given that Hezbollah's rockets reached south of Tell Aviv just days before the ceasefire, 30 miles north of the border will not make any difference. This conclusion is clear in the mind of most Israelis, especially those of the north who are yet to start returning, and they may not return until after the 60 days had passed to see if this 60-day agreement is going to be made permanent. making the agreement permanent may depend on another ceasefire in Gaza; without an end to the war in Gaza, resumption of violence is a possibility and that will prevent many Israelis from returning to the north.  Military solutions rarely produce permanent solutions unless they are followed by a political solution. Israeli leaders have no interest in settling the conflict with the Palestinians in a way that will make wars unnecessary.