The Resistance’s Commitment Is to the Agreement, Not Its Interpretations

 December 06, 2024

By Nasser Kandil

• Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem devoted part of his speech yesterday to clarifying the boundaries of the resistance’s obligations under the terms of UN Resolution 1701, as stipulated in the agreement. This was a subtle response to a wave of interpretations that have resurfaced debates about the future of the resistance’s arms and references to Resolution 1559.

• Sheikh Qassem stated: “The agreement calls for the withdrawal of Israel from all Lebanese territories and the cessation of its aggression. In exchange, the presence of armed fighters and resistance weapons is prohibited south of the Litani River, where the Lebanese Army deploys as the sole armed force. Thus, the agreement is confined to the area south of the Litani River. Related resolutions, their mechanisms, and details mentioned in Resolution 1701 are outside the scope of the agreement’s implementation mechanisms, which are limited to the Litani area. Any references to broader aspects merely revert to related resolutions and their specific content”.

• Sheikh Qassem’s remarks delineate a clear red line ahead of the meeting of the complaints and review committee, which some seek to establish as a de facto military authority over Lebanon. According to U.S. and Israeli commentary, the Israeli withdrawal is contingent on the Lebanese Army fulfilling its mandate to halt Hezbollah’s supply lines and addressing the issue of its weapons. Until then, Israeli firepower actions are not being classified as violations of the ceasefire agreement.

• Today’s committee meeting is both foundational and pivotal, presenting two paths: upholding the ceasefire agreement or initiating its unraveling and collapse. Should the U.S. and Israel persist in their distorted interpretation of the agreement, it would signal its impending demise, prompting the resistance to escalate its responses to violations, which would no longer be labeled as breaches from the American perspective – even if documented as such by the Lebanese Army. Conversely, adherence to the agreement’s text by the U.S. would likely curtail Israel’s ability to unilaterally reject it, thus safeguarding its continuity.

• As Sheikh Qassem emphasised, the resistance remains committed to the agreement, does not seek to undermine it, and places no obstacles in the way of its implementation. It is prepared to fulfill its obligations without engaging in semantic disputes that could serve as pretexts for evasion, as the occupying entity often does. Loyal to its country and commitments, the resistance is ready to act in tandem with the cessation of violations and the Israeli withdrawal, ensuring that the area south of the Litani becomes an exclusive domain of the Lebanese Army.