Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon would benefit all parties
https://arab.news/4grpk
Following the ceasefire agreement that was sealed on Nov. 27 last year, Israel was supposed to withdraw from Lebanese territory by Jan. 26. The deadline was last month extended to Feb. 18. However, as we approach that date, Israel is showing no signs that it will withdraw in time. Its withdrawal is necessary for Lebanon to have any kind of stability or state-building.
Israel has been successful in decapitating Hezbollah's leadership. It used advanced technology to assassinate the group's field leaders. Later, it conducted the attack on Hezbollah pagers, in which more than 3,500 top operatives were simultaneously either killed or maimed. Israel followed this attack with an intensive bombing campaign, in which it killed all commanders of the group, starting with Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.
According to the ceasefire agreement, Hezbollah needs to withdraw north of the Litani River. The deal also includes the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which orders all Lebanese militias to disarm. Meanwhile, Israel was supposed to withdraw by the end of an initial 60-day period. However, it did not. The excuse that Israel presented was that it needs to clear the south of the country of all arms depots and pockets of resistance. This is why it keeps bombing parts of the south and the Bekaa Valley every now and then.
What is obvious is that Israel and the new US administration do not believe in soft power or the ideas of nuance and narrative. They only believe in hard power. They believe that the only way to get rid of Hezbollah is to kill all its operatives and dry up all its sources of funding. What they do not realize is that by adopting this method they are undermining the Lebanese state.
Hezbollah's military muscle can be weakened, but the idea of Hezbollah cannot be eradicated as long as there is any form of Israeli occupation or breach of Lebanese sovereignty. Hezbollah's argument, on which it bases the legitimacy for its existence, is that the Lebanese army cannot protect Lebanon from Israeli aggression. Hence, a guerrilla force is needed.
If Israel wanted to act intelligently, it would withdraw before the next deadline and allow the Lebanese state to take the credit
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib
If Israel wanted to act intelligently, it would withdraw before the next deadline and allow the Lebanese state to take the credit. This way, Beirut could show the Lebanese people, including Hezbollah, that the Lebanese state can repel the Israelis and protect the country from its aggression by using diplomacy. However, the Israeli leaders' arrogance, coupled with American permissiveness, is undermining the Lebanese state.
Though Hezbollah is weakened militarily, its narrative is being strengthened at the expense of the Lebanese state's prestige. When the 60-day period finished, the people of the south rushed back to their homes. Israel shot 22 people dead. This was a blow to the Lebanese state. It showed that the state was unable to protect its own people. Hezbollah will not be weakened as long as its audience feel that they need protection. Israel might kill the commander and disrupt the chain of command. However, it will only be a matter of time before the group restores its chain of command and grooms new leaders.
The US, which brokered the ceasefire, should show respect and empower the Lebanese state in order for the Lebanese people to trust it. If the average Lebanese, especially in the south, does not feel that the state can protect them from Israeli aggression, they will revert to Hezbollah for protection. They will send their children to be enlisted in the group. They will contribute from their hard-earned money to finance the group.
However, this is not how the US has acted. During her visit to Lebanon last week, Deputy Special Middle East Envoy Morgan Ortagus thanked Israel for defeating Hezbollah. Israel had just destroyed half of the country and the US envoy, speaking at the presidential palace, thanked it. This announcement undermined the Lebanese state and exacerbated the country's internal divisions. It also reinforced the perception among Lebanese Shiites that the state cannot protect them. The Shiites feel alienated and hurt and Hezbollah is taking advantage of that.
At the same time, the camp that is antagonistic to Hezbollah feels empowered. Progress MP Mark Daou said that the speaker of the parliament, who is an ally of Hezbollah, should walk the line, otherwise he should be wary of a woman's shoe (referring to Ortagus) or to a boot (probably referring to a military boot). The supporters of Hezbollah and Amal were deeply offended by his disrespectful comments toward their leadership. They accused him of being an agent for the Israelis.
The US, which brokered the ceasefire, should show respect and empower the Lebanese state in order for the Lebanese people to trust it
Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib
This is a watershed moment for the Lebanese — a moment where the people should rally around the state and focus on institution-building and the conducting of reforms. However, the Israeli presence is creating a point of contention between the Lebanese who are happy that Hezbollah has been defeated and the supporters of the group, who feel alienated by the rest of Lebanese society. It is also a distraction from state-building and a gift for corrupt politicians to derail the progress toward reforms.
The US, which has the upper hand, should have a strategic view. It should pressure Israel to withdraw, while getting enough guarantees from the Lebanese state that it will pressure Hezbollah to disarm and to morph into a political party on a par with the other parties in the country. However, the US seems to prefer hard power and a blunt approach. This approach entails the risk of internal unrest.
The US should realize that the only viable alternative to Hezbollah is a strong Lebanese state that can deliver security and services to its citizens. This cannot happen as long as Israel occupies parts of Lebanon and infringes on its security. The US should pressure Israel to withdraw by the deadline of Feb. 18.
• Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese nongovernmental organization focused on Track II.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leaders
5 hours ago
- Leaders
INTERVIEW-Tehran's Response will be Limited to Escalation with Israel: Dr. Youssef Badr
As the conflict between Iran and Israel entered its tenth day, the US joined to Israel's side, striking three key nuclear facilities in Iran with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles and risking further escalation. The announcement came early on Sunday, as the US President, Donald Trump, declared that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, have been 'completely and totally obliterated.' In response, Iran accused Washington of launching a dangerous war on Tehran, in complicity with Israel, warning of the 'everlasting consequences' of the US strikes and stressing Iran's right to respond. The recent escalation has put the world on edge, as Tehran is weighing its response, including the possibility of closing the Hormuz Strait – a move that could send shockwaves across the global economy. As a result, world powers have called for restraint and de-escalation, urging all sides to return to diplomacy. To gain more insights into the ongoing conflict, Leaders MENA Magazine reached out for Dr. Youssef Badr, a scholar of Middle Eastern affairs. In this interview, Dr. Badr explains the implications of the recent developments on Iran and the wider region. Iran's Nuclear Program Q: Have the US and Israeli strikes succeeded in eliminating Iran's nuclear program? Officially, Trump promotes that the Iranian nuclear program is obliterated in order to end the war. In fact, however, the US and Israel have not managed to completely eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. They have just disrupted it. The Iranian nuclear program cannot be obliterated because – unlike projects previously destroyed in Libya or Iraq – it depends on national expertise, whether in terms of scientists, equipment production, or facility construction. Therefore, the US policy, which was swayed by the Israeli narrative, does not appear successful because the Iranian project could go underground. In this case, it will be more dangerous than monitoring it by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Tehran's Options Q: Would Iran escalate or succumb to Trump's threats and choose peaceful settlement? And what options does Tehran have to respond? Tehran will not accept a forced peace, just as it has rejected a forced war. Hence, it will not be easy for the Iranians to accept any settlement that comes at the expense of their status and regional interests. Iran's history bears this out. The Iranians did not end war with Iraq – even though they were not the ones who initiated it – until they secured their demands. Indeed, Iran welcomes an end to the war, but not in the form of a capitulation. Any settlement must yield benefits. The Iranians may not oppose giving up the right to uranium enrichment in exchange of something bigger, such as the return of Iran to the global economy in a competitive way. Tehran's options to respond to the US strikes will remain limited to escalation with the Israelis and disturbing the Americans. The Iranian military strategy does not invite a war with the US and consider it a red line. However, Iran has the ability to endure a long attrition war, although the large geographical distance between Iran and Israel makes it unlikely. Escalation Risks Q: Trump told the Iranians that there are 'many targets left' that the US could strike if 'peace does not come quickly.' In your opinion, what was Trump referring to? It is a warning message to pressure Iran to accept a deal that brings the war to an end. He means draining what is left of Iran's economic, military or nuclear capabilities. Despite Tehran's rejection of ending the war, negotiations have not stopped and Trump sends messages to Iran through mediators. Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's visit to Moscow indicates that reaching a solution is possible, particularly that Tehran met with the E3. This also indicates a failure of Trump's policy, which refused multilateral talks in the beginning. Intervention Implications Q: What potential repercussions does the US' military intervention in Iran have on the Middle East and the world? Two nuclear powers attacked an undeclared nuclear state, which has a nuclear program that, despite suspicions, has not been proven to be non-peaceful. This undermines the UN Charter and constitutes a failure of the IAEA's mission and goals. Therefore, it makes the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) membership pointless, especially that Trump publicly acknowledged striking nuclear facilities and NASA confirmed the operation. Furthermore, Israel's involvement in the operation will drive the region's countries to seriously consider the danger of Israel's nuclear capabilities, aside from Iran's issue. Similarly, the American move emboldens Russia to replicate the strike against Ukrainian nuclear facilities. Russia and China Q: How do you assess the positions of Russia and China toward the current escalation? Would they intervene in the conflict? Russia has taken advantage of the West's focus on Iran, intensifying its strikes on Ukraine and occupying more territories to gain more bargaining chips with the Western powers. Despite limited support, there will be no direct Russian intervention to Iran's side unless Iran agreed to include military partnership in the strategic agreement between the two countries. But this risks broadening the war. Current conflicts involve a side that engages in a direct confrontation and another side that provides undeclared support, as seen with NATO's unofficial support to Ukraine. Moreover, Moscow does not want a strong Iran as this will deny Russia an avenue to maneuver against Western and European sanctions. At the same time, it does not welcome the fall or fragmentation of Iran. In such case, Russia could reoccupy the northern regions of Iran to protect its interests and influence. As for China, Iran is not like Pakistan, which borders China and received its support against India. Still, Iran is important for China as a gateway to Europe, the Gulf and the Middle East. So, it does not welcome its collapse. Meanwhile, Russia and China are both responsible for the dilapidated state that Iran is experiencing. The two countries have not given Tehran its demanded weapons, defense systems and fighter jets, under the pretext of compliance to international sanctions. Thus, Iran has not received sufficient development since it aligned itself with them. Domestic Impacts of Escalation Q: How is the current conflict impacting Iran domestically? And is the collapse of the regime imminent? There are opponents, even enemies, to the current regime. But at the same time, there are supporters, and Iran's social and organizational structure is contributing to protecting this regime. Just as the opposition propaganda claims that the Iranian regime has begun to erode, the current war may have given it a new lease on life. The regime managed to adapt to the war in Iraq for eight years. Additionally, the 2015 nuclear deal granted Iran an opportunity for change, as a result of its engagement with the West – a development that unsettled Russia and China. However, Trump scrapped the deal and caused a mistrust in the West. This lack of trust in the Western powers will keep pushing Iranians toward alignment with Moscow and Beijing. Short link : Post Views: 10
Leaders
5 hours ago
- Leaders
US Issues ‘Worldwide Caution' for Americans as Middle East Tensions Escalate
Against the backdrop of the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel, the US has issued a Worldwide Caution Security Alert to American citizens living or traveling abroad. The security alert, released by the US Department of State, urges American citizens worldwide to exercise increased caution amid the mounting tensions in the Middle East. 'The conflict between Israel and Iran has resulted in disruptions to travel and periodic closure of airspace across the Middle East. There is the potential for demonstrations against US citizens and interests abroad,' the security alert read. 'The Department of State advises US citizens worldwide to exercise increased caution,' it added. The updated security alert came on the heels of the US intervention in the Iran-Israel conflict, by providing direct military support to Israel in order to eliminate Tehran's nuclear capabilities. Early on Sunday, the US targeted three key nuclear facilities in Iran, including Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, with bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles. The US President, Donald Trump, announced a 'very successful attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran.' He also declared that Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities 'have been completely and totally obliterated,' warning Tehran of future attacks if it retaliated. On its part, Tehran accused the US of launching a 'dangerous war' on Iran amid ongoing diplomatic efforts, saying that it reserves the right to defend itself with full force. Moreover, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, warned that the US 'outrageous' attacks will have 'everlasting consequences.' Short link : Post Views: 3
Asharq Al-Awsat
9 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Hezbollah Reiterates Its Refusal to Enter the War
The US military intervention alongside Israel in its war against Iran has sparked growing concern in Lebanon, mixing fear with uncertainty about what lies ahead, especially as the region awaits Iran's response. Lebanese citizens are questioning whether Iran will retaliate solely against Israel or also strike nearby US military bases. Some speculate that Iran might avoid targeting American bases in neighboring countries that have shown solidarity with Tehran, as maintaining these relationships could help Iran push for an end to the war and a return to US-Iranian dialogue. Despite mounting regional tension, Hezbollah continues to avoid direct military involvement. This position aligns with the recent statements of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who affirmed that Hezbollah will not intervene. While some interpreted Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem's pledge of 'full support to Iran in any way we deem appropriate' as a divergence, sources say the party is fully aligned with Berri. Berri maintains that dialogue between Washington and Tehran is the only path to halting the conflict and addressing Iran's nuclear file. His stance is echoed by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and other political actors. US envoy Thomas Barrack, currently stationed in Türkiye, reportedly discussed these matters with Lebanese officials and promised to return in three weeks, hoping for progress toward a ceasefire and the implementation of UN Resolution 1701, which calls for Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon and for weapons to be under the exclusive control of the Lebanese state. According to sources, the US escalation has prompted behind-the-scenes consultations between Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and Lebanese state officials. These talks aim to evaluate the situation and ensure Lebanon remains out of the regional conflict. Hezbollah remains firm in its decision not to engage militarily, refusing to offer Israel a pretext to expand the war into Lebanon. Despite internal solidarity with Iran, Hezbollah is keenly aware that joining the war would not shift the military balance, which now involves advanced weaponry beyond its capabilities. The sources added that the party is also mindful of Lebanese Shiite public sentiment, which favors stability over another devastating war. Memories of past conflicts, including the toll of Hezbollah's support for Gaza, linger. Fears of displacement and economic ruin are driving many in Beirut's southern suburbs to sell their homes, often at steep losses.
