What will become of Hezbollah?
Okaz, Saudi Arabia, October 3
Israel has finally succeeded in targeting the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, after 18 years in hiding. This marks a significant blow to Hezbollah and its Iranian allies.
The sequence of setbacks inflicted on the militia began with the hacking of their communications network, followed by the assassination of over 500 field commanders in the south over the past year. The campaign culminated in the elimination of second-tier leaders and, ultimately, Nasrallah himself.
For many, Hezbollah’s influence had already waned following Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. Despite this, the party insisted on retaining its arms, thus emerging as the sole armed political entity within Lebanon. This led Hezbollah to impose its will on its Lebanese counterparts, crossing a critical line in 2008 when it turned its weapons inward and occupied Beirut. At that moment, Nasrallah’s credibility diminished, both morally and popularly. His once-revered stature further eroded as Hezbollah became the vanguard in Iran’s regional conflicts.
Nasrallah’s decision to embroil Hezbollah in the Syrian crisis, despite the Lebanese government’s policy of neutrality, underscored his ascendancy over both government and state institutions. His sectarian belligerence in Syria – marked by attacks on civilians – dealt another blow to his reputation. Moreover, Nasrallah’s endorsement of hostilities against Saudi Arabia and support for the Houthi movement in Yemen drew widespread condemnation.
During the recent conflict, Nasrallah’s unwavering allegiance to Iran’s agenda overshadowed any efforts to uphold Lebanon’s stability or genuinely aid the Palestinian plight in Gaza.
Now, Nasrallah has departed, leaving Lebanon teetering on the edge. Hezbollah in disarray, and his legacy is marred among much of the Arab populace, tainted by violence and division. When Nasrallah aligned Hezbollah with Iran’s regional ambitions, the organization transformed from a cohesive ideological entity with clear objectives into mercenaries fulfilling foreign agendas. This change necessitated increasing recruitment and liaison with foreign intelligence services, eventually exposing Hezbollah’s vulnerabilities to Israel.
As highlighted in an investigative report by the Financial Times, Mossad’s penetration of Hezbollah’s ranks signaled an unprecedented moment of internal collapse reaching up to the group’s leadership, while Iranian overseers appeared indifferent.
For those poised to succeed Nasrallah, there is a glimmer of hope. A reevaluation of Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon is imperative. The goal should be to evolve into a national entity invested in nation-building rather than acting as a pawn in foreign conflicts, thus avoiding a fate where they are discarded after serving their purpose or becoming a liability. – Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali
Israel’s inevitable return to Gaza
Al Rai, Kuwait, October 4
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has effectively positioned himself as a pivotal figure in Israel’s political landscape. Though he maneuvered from Gaza to Lebanon, facilitated by Hezbollah facilitation, ultimately, he will be compelled to return to Gaza.
Despite the severe devastation, Gaza undeniably represents the core of the Palestinian cause, a reality Netanyahu cannot afford to overlook. This remains true regardless of Hamas’ accountability for the events unfolding in the region.
Currently, Netanyahu’s popularity is on the rise, stemming largely from Israel’s successful assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut’s southern suburbs. However, this acclaim does not render Netanyahu impervious in the long term. He must navigate a geopolitical landscape that demands a departure from extremism and embraces a pragmatic political strategy.
While Netanyahu’s military achievements reflect the prowess of Israel’s military and security apparatus, backed by the US, they do not translate into political triumphs for the prime minister himself. Sooner or later, he will have to concede that his aspirations to resolve the Palestinian issue according to his terms are unattainable.
Lebanon’s situation differs significantly from Gaza’s, and Hezbollah’s negligence in acknowledging Gaza’s plight ranks among its gravest strategic errors, culminating in the loss of its senior leaders, including its secretary-general.
Israel has transformed Gaza into a region largely uninhabitable by its native population, complicating reconstruction efforts as a significant fraction of its 2.5 million residents have been displaced. Israel’s recent intensified focus on the conflict in Lebanon is telling, particularly given Lebanon’s lack of allies on the global stage.
How can a rational observer suggest linking the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon with those in Gaza? Such a proposition ignores the ground realities, including the fact that Hamas has not launched a single rocket in solidarity with a beleaguered ally currently facing existential threats. The conflict extends beyond decimating Hezbollah’s ranks; it has inflicted severe repercussions on Lebanon, a nation grappling with a profound socioeconomic crisis that endangers its very existence.
Aligning with Israel under the assumption that Gaza continues to resist is detrimental not only to Lebanon but also to the Lebanese, including those from the southern regions displaced by Hezbollah’s directives, who persist in advocating for a Gaza ceasefire. Yet, Israel appears intent solely on extricating itself from the Gaza quagmire. For Netanyahu, prolonging the Gaza conflict may serve personal objectives, but persisting with the war in Lebanon is unnecessary if specific conditions, which require acceptance from willing parties, are fulfilled to salvage what remains of the beleaguered nation.
Halting hostilities in Lebanon is feasible. A definitive stance from Hezbollah, utilizing the skeletal framework of Lebanese state institutions, could facilitate the return of displaced southern residents to their villages and the subsequent reconstruction of their homes.
Simultaneously, displaced Israeli citizens could return to their homes if credible assurances are provided. While the Gaza issue will persist, Lebanon’s circumstances require addressing UN Security Council Resolution 1701. This reality increasingly underscores the inevitability of returning to Gaza, signaling a broader call to return to political solutions.
Netanyahu seems reluctant to acknowledge this impending necessity. Nonetheless, expelling an entire population from historic Palestinian territories is impracticable. A new Middle East simply cannot emerge without a resolution in Palestine. Meanwhile, Lebanon languishes, abandoned amid its ongoing crisis, lacking effective governance and authority. – Kheirallah Kheirallah
Is the international community an adversary or a judge?
Al Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, October 3
The international community acknowledges that peace is vital to addressing the Palestinian issue, but it understands that this can only be achieved through a just and comprehensive solution, namely the two-state solution.
This proposal, initiated by Saudi Arabia and embraced by Arab and Islamic nations, stands in stark contrast to the policies of the Israeli government under Netanyahu, which rejects the notion of an independent Palestinian state. This stance implies a clear dismissal of justice, suggesting that Israel is entitled to statehood while Palestinians are consigned to a life of stateless refugees.
How does the international community respond to such an obstinate Israeli position? Has it resigned itself to despair, surrendering to the prevailing situation? Is the international community an impartial arbiter in this matter, or does it play the role of a partisan actor? How can normalization with Israel be justified amid ongoing occupation and expansion, which strips Palestinians of their fundamental rights? In this context, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and prime minister, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), has reaffirmed the kingdom’s stance: No relations with Israel will be established without the creation of a Palestinian state.
This decision underscores Saudi Arabia’s unwavering support for the Palestinian cause, offering consistent political and humanitarian backing despite changing circumstances. What role does the international community play?
Some would rephrase the question: Who comprises the “international community?” Why doesn’t this “community” prioritize a strategic solution to the Palestinian issue rather than becoming bogged down in peripheral matters? Instead of inconsistency and ambiguity in its stance on the two-state solution, why not take decisive action? There exists a gap between rhetoric and deeds – actions lacking the courage to reflect the principles that the international community professes incessantly yet fails to manifest in tangible ways.
Israel seeks to maintain both occupation and security while remaining above legal reproach, a situation that is neither logical nor just, and certainly unsustainable. The international community has repeatedly failed to resolve this crisis or even to consistently condemn it. The Arab League, as part of this community, remains embroiled in Middle Eastern issues and has not managed to sustain an international media effort that reveals the Israeli occupation’s realities, informing global citizens about the Palestinian situation. Palestinians, deprived of fundamental rights to freedom, dignity, and security, look to a global community that champions human rights yet remains inattentive to their plight.
Dominated by countries wielding veto power, the international community, despite its might, struggles to make independent decisions rooted in justice rather than self-interest. In its current form, is the international community acting as a judge or an adversary? – Youssef al-Qablan
A special kind of war
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, October 5
In light of Israel’s ongoing military campaigns in Palestine and Lebanon, there is a distinct pattern emerging in the tactics it employs to achieve success in its military operations and targeted assassinations against key Hamas and Hezbollah figures.
It appears unlikely that Israel could have executed such swift and surprise assassinations without first relying on intelligence gathered through informants within these organizations, followed by advanced technological support. For decades, intelligence supplied by agents has played a pivotal role in wars and conflicts, serving as crucial conduits for information that can significantly influence the outcome of battles.
Israel has numerous notable cases in this regard, such as the infamous story of Eli Cohen, the agent who infiltrated the upper echelons of the Syrian government in the 1960s. Cohen delivered vital intelligence to Israel, enabling its army to make strategic gains in the 1967 war. Despite his eventual execution, his tale underscores the impact a human spy can have on shifting power dynamics within regional conflicts. As time has progressed, technological advancements have entered the fray, adding another formidable weapon to Israel’s arsenal. By employing satellites, drones, spyware, and electronic hacking, Israel has enhanced its ability to monitor adversaries, gather precise intelligence, and execute aerial strikes, as evidenced in operations such as the “pager operation,” all without needing direct confrontation.
In Gaza and Lebanon, Israel leverages surveillance technology to infiltrate the communications networks of resistance movements. It may have further capitalized on the discovery of Hamas tunnels to breach the technological infrastructures developed by the movement.
The reality is, I am uncertain of the exact execution strategies behind Israel’s assassinations. Were they rooted in detailed intelligence from ground operatives, technologically driven insights, or an amalgamation of both? The example of the assassination of Ahmed Jabari in Gaza in 2012 stands out as a prime instance of this synergy between human intelligence and technology, where leaked information on his movements culminated in his targeting by a precision-guided missile.
Israel clearly understands the necessity of merging technology with intelligence to maximize operational effectiveness. Technology might offer meticulous surveillance, but human operatives can supply essential nuances that purely technological means may overlook. Through this strategic amalgamation, Israel has been able consistently to execute precise assassination operations.
This raises a pressing question: Can resistance movements adapt to this new operational landscape shaped by Israel? Can they keep pace technologically? And can they prevent the internal flow of sensitive information? The answer could very well determine whether these movements persist or dissipate. – Abdel Latif El-Menawy
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.