Occupied Jerusalem- The Israeli rejection of the American-French proposal for a temporary ceasefire with Hezbollah reflected the Israeli consensus on the Third Lebanon War, a consensus that was adopted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, through the decision of the Mini-Ministerial Council for Political and Security Affairs (Cabinet), to update the goals of the war and include the return of displaced Israelis. To the border towns with Lebanon.
This consensus transcends all political and partisan camps, transcends differences over burning internal issues, and enjoys the support of Israeli society, whose convictions have been strengthened that Hezbollah, like the Palestinian resistance factions and Hamas, poses an existential threat to the continuation of the Zionist project in the Middle East region.
These developments and the Israeli position come at a time when Hezbollah has not activated all of its missile capabilities, as it deliberately targets military sites only, and avoids bombing populated areas and civilians, in order to have a pressure card against the international community, to reserve for itself the right to respond in the face of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.
Messages and goals
The readings of analysts and researchers on Israeli affairs agreed that the declared goal of returning the displaced from the settlements in the north, as well as re-imposing Israeli sovereignty along the border with Lebanon, as expressed by Defense Minister Yoav Galant, requires a greater degree of agreement between the Israeli parties regarding the military operation against Hezbollah, which was achieved. With an American green light.
In light of this American support, the Israeli consensus, and the popular support that Netanyahu enjoys, analysts do not rule out the scenario of escalation on the Lebanon front, and loss of control if a ceasefire agreement is not reached with Hezbollah, and also on the front with the Gaza Strip.
Analysts believe that the Israeli consensus on the Third Lebanon War carries within it escalatory messages by threatening a ground incursion into southern Lebanon and seeking to resolve the battle against Hezbollah, which portends a comprehensive escalation in the Middle East.
Multiply and separate
Writer and political analyst Saeed Zidani said that the comprehensive Israeli aggression against Lebanon was carried out in accordance with the cabinet decision, which reconsidered the objectives of the war, adding to it the goal of returning displaced Israelis to their towns in the northern border areas.
In an interview with Tel Aviv Tribune Net, Zidani asked how Israel is progressing towards achieving this goal, in light of Hezbollah’s declared commitment to linking the Gaza front and the Lebanon front? According to the political analyst, this puts Israel “faced with challenges on the northern front, in light of the commitment of the resistance in Lebanon to the unity of the areas supporting Gaza.”
The political analyst believes that the Israeli military operation in Lebanon aims to strike and undermine Hezbollah’s military and missile power, and also to separate the Lebanese front from the Gaza front, which obligates the Israeli army to engage in a comprehensive confrontation with Hezbollah.
Consensus and disagreement
Commenting on the Israeli rejection of the American-French proposal for a temporary ceasefire, Zidani said, “Any decision in this context that is not in line with the declared decisions and goals approved by the cabinet will not be accepted by Israel.”
He pointed out that Israel insists on obliging Hezbollah to implement Security Council Resolution 1701, and to withdraw its forces beyond the Blue Line and the Litani River in southern Lebanon, which was taken after the Second Lebanon War in July 2006, and to separate the two fronts in Lebanon and Gaza, to ensure the return of displaced Israelis. .
Regarding these developments and positions expressed by the cabinet, Zaidani says that this Israeli consensus on the war on Lebanon reminds us that the overwhelming Israeli majority was also united on the eve of the aggression on the Gaza Strip in October 2023.
The political analyst explained that this Israeli consensus regarding the state of war on Lebanon reflects the tribe’s feeling of being threatened, as well as the gathering of the already quarreling members of the tribe before the events of October 7th.
He pointed out that there is greater consensus among the various leaderships of Israeli parties, movements, and political camps, including also the military level and security leaders, regarding the threat of Hezbollah, which, according to this consensus and consensus in Tel Aviv, constitutes an “existential threat to Israel.”
Coalition and opposition
The same proposal was adopted by historian and researcher of Israeli affairs, Johnny Mansour, who believes that the Israeli consensus on the war on Lebanon falls within the consensus on the aggression on the Gaza Strip, which was accompanied by a demand from the families of the kidnapped people for a temporary ceasefire to conclude an exchange deal and then for the government to continue the war.
In his interview with Tel Aviv Tribune Net, Mansour believes that the idea of a comprehensive war is well established not only among the government coalition, but also among the opposition parties, and this was also demonstrated by Netanyahu’s success in marketing the idea of returning settlers to their towns in the north through war and seeking a solution against Hezbollah.
The researcher on Israeli affairs estimated that the Israeli military leadership is well aware that the army cannot resolve the war with Hezbollah through heavy raids and aerial bombardment, not even through a ground incursion into southern Lebanon.
Mansour doubted the effectiveness of the ground invasion in achieving such a resolution, which is being threatened by Israel to exert more pressure to obtain more military and diplomatic support from America, which already stands with Israel and continues to supply it with weapons, financial support, and logistical readiness at sea, and in Washington’s various military bases in the country. The Middle East.
Behavior and involvement
In a reading of the Israeli rejection of the temporary truce proposal on the Lebanon front, Mansour indicated that this is due to the same behavior and approach that Netanyahu adopted in the negotiations of the exchange deal and ceasefire with the Hamas movement in Gaza.
He warned that the Israeli bombing of Lebanon and the assassinations and raids on the southern suburb of Beirut benefit Netanyahu temporarily, as he continues to promote the aggression against Lebanon and the strikes directed at Hezbollah in front of Israeli society as “tactical achievements.”
It is believed that Israeli intransigence and the tendency towards a ground incursion will return Tel Aviv to the turmoil of the battles in Lebanon during the 1982 war, which extended until the year 2000, as well as to involvement in a new war similar to the Second Lebanon War.
The researcher on Israeli affairs says, “Today Israel faces the northern front with Lebanon with a different and more complex reality, because Hezbollah possesses a military arsenal and ballistic missile capability that can reach everywhere in historic Palestine.”
He concluded by saying, “Every day of fighting without a ceasefire will involve Tel Aviv more, and will create a state of regional tension in the Middle East, but Israel, since its inception, has lived on battles and wars, and this explains the consensus on war.”