By Nasser Kandil
– Parallel to discussions of a broad strike on Lebanon, there is growing momentum for negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement that would end the war in Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu no longer rejects the idea of ending the war, but he has introduced conditions designed to undermine the resistance’s victory, disguising them as meeting demands. These conditions include a complete withdrawal from Gaza, along with the deployment of Arab and international observers in areas the occupation wished to retain, such as Netzarim, the Philadelphi Route, and the Rafah crossing. Additionally, the release of prominent prisoners is accepted on the condition that they are exiled from the West Bank. Post-withdrawal, Gaza’s administration would be managed in a piecemeal manner, allowing for the formation of local councils where feasible, while Fatah or the Palestinian Authority would assume control in other areas. Reconstruction companies would establish militias and affiliated bodies, while what remains for Hamas would stay under its control.
– The resistance rejects Netanyahu’s proposals. Many within the Israeli entity, including Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, believe that these proposals could derail the negotiation process. Claims of American displeasure with Netanyahu’s proposals are difficult to believe, as the Geneva meeting of mediators was specifically arranged to receive these proposals after they had been refined in Washington during Netanyahu’s meetings with American officials. Aligned with his war rhetoric and threats of escalation, Netanyahu uses these tactics as leverage to advance his proposals and gauge their potential outcomes.
– The Washington agreement is closely linked to President Joe Biden’s administration’s efforts to impede both Syrian-Turkish reconciliation and the American withdrawal from Syria and Iraq, thereby serving American and Israeli interests. If disrupting and postponing the Gaza agreement to prevent it from coinciding with significant victories by the resistance axis proves impossible, the delay allows for concentrated pressure to manipulate the terms of the Gaza agreement to the greatest extent possible. However, the priority remains to seize the opportunity, as the war has turned deadly for the Israeli occupation army.
– It is legitimate to question the seriousness of the Israeli army’s intent to launch a major military operation against the resistance in Lebanon, given the understanding of the severe consequences that would follow for the occupation in either a minor or major conflict with the Lebanese resistance. In either scenario, the repercussions will surpass the entity’s capacity to endure, resulting in total losses. It is important not to frame this as a response to the Majdal Shams massacre, as the occupation committed the crime, likely premeditatedly, to serve its escalation strategy and manipulate the Druze communities in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria. This plan was thwarted by the vigilance of the resistance-minded Arab Syrian residents of Majdal Shams and the courageous, patriotic stance of Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt, whose involvement was crucial to ensuring the plan’s success.
– A legitimate question that can be posed: Is discussing war more effective and safer than engaging in it, particularly when leveraging threats of aggression during negotiations to producing an agreement and declare that the conflict has ended and war has ceased on all fronts otherwise there would have been a ‘blow unlike anything Hezbollah has ever seen’, but the war has stopped, so what can be done?
