November 16, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• Benjamin Netanyahu sought to leverage the fires of war to shape negotiations, as evidenced by his military leaders’ rejection of a ceasefire before discussing the implementation of Resolution 1701. Lebanese officials confirmed the intent was to negotiate without amendments or additions, while Netanyahu aimed to exploit the ongoing conflict to reshape negotiations and amend the resolution. The goal: enshrine the gains achieved by the occupation through obstructing Resolution 1701, particularly in the domains of air and naval activity at the expense of Lebanese sovereignty, and retain strategically significant territories like the Shebaa Farms. Such privileges, Netanyahu believed, were essential for waging future wars. His exuberance over perceived strength even extended to demanding the liberty of ground incursions whenever a threat was perceived. Thus, the occupying entity declared its intent to negotiate under fire rather than after a ceasefire.
• For a month, the ousted Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s theory of “negotiation under fire” dominated media, political, and diplomatic narratives. The one-sided interpretation posited that resistance forces would be obliterated and Lebanon’s population subjected to unprecedented destruction and death, compelling the country to capitulate to Israeli terms. Certain Arab and foreign writers, including Lebanese residents and expatriates, went so far as to label Lebanon’s restraint a grave error, warning that adherence to Resolution 1701 would exact an unbearable price. They argued that, ultimately, yielding to Israeli conditions would be the only way to end the war.
• However, as days turned into weeks, the narrative began to unravel. Claims of Israeli success in ground operations became the subject of ridicule. The occupying army demonstrated its incapacity to secure control over even a single village or town within Lebanese borders. Rockets continued to be launched from areas the army claimed to have entered and destroyed, revealing the futility of these incursions. The costs of the ground operations, both human and material, mounted exponentially, exposing their ineffectiveness. The resistance’s capabilities remain unshaken, and the occupation forces were unable to assert control, retreating under heavy fire after repeated incursions.
Simultaneously, resistance rockets and drones rendered life unbearable deep within the occupying entity. Millions of settlers spent indefinite periods in shelters, gripped by anxiety. Haifa began to resemble Kiryat Shmona, as the resistance had vowed. Tel Aviv came under sustained rocket and drone attacks, with the Prime Minister’s bedroom among the targets, along with the Golani Brigade headquarters and key facilities of the 36th, 98th, and 146th divisions. The occupying entity found itself ensnared in a balance of pain and anxiety, mirroring the devastation and casualties it inflicted indiscriminately on Lebanese infrastructure and civilians.
• One month after Gallant’s proclamation of “negotiation under fire”, Lebanon’s stance remained steadfast. Both the Lebanese state and the resistance adhered to their demand for a ceasefire and the implementation of Resolution 1701. Meanwhile, the occupying entity’s rhetoric faltered. Netanyahu was forced to amend his new Defense Minister’s statement about continuing the war to disarm Hezbollah, clarifying that the goal was merely to push Hezbollah’s weapons beyond the Litani River, as stipulated by Resolution 1701. However, achieving this required relinquishing the illusion of retaining gains acquired through obstructing the resolution’s implementation – whether by air, sea, or land – rather than attempting to enshrine them in a negotiated agreement.
• While the flames of war failed to sway Lebanon’s position, they began imposing changes on the occupying entity’s leaders. The U.S. proposal delivered to Lebanon remains insufficient from the perspective of Lebanese sovereignty, requiring cancellations, clarifications, and amendments. Nevertheless, it marks a departure from the initial conditions premised on the illusion of negotiation under fire-a retreat compelled by the realities of war.
As the path to a final agreement remains fraught with time and further negotiations, these will continue under fire, as the occupying entity insisted. Yet, while its campaign of destruction and death fails to alter Lebanon’s resolve, the resistance’s fire – targeting the fronts of ground war and deep into the occupying entity’s territory-will mature its leaders and public opinion, forcing them to descend from the heights of delusion.Thus, the theory of ‘negotiation under fire’ has not only backfired but also delivered poetic justice, or, as the Arabic saying goes, ‘the spell has turned on the sorcerer’.
