Hochstein’s ‘Diva Behaviour’ and Netanyahu’s Strikes: A Coordinated Pressure Campaign

November 19, 2024

Nasser Kandil

• The occupying entity’s announcement regarding U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein’s confirmed visit to Tel Aviv from Beirut on Wednesday, coincided with a U.S. official’s statement to Axios affirming Hochstein’s imminent arrival in Beirut. However, this confirmation does not negate the fact that doubts about the visit initially emerged from Washington itself. These doubts were not errors by amateurs but a deliberate tactic employed by seasoned professionals. Axios had first reported scepticism about Hochstein’s visit, citing U.S. officials, only to retract it two and a half hours later. Within that short span, Israeli forces launched intense airstrikes, including one targeting Beirut’s heart – Zoqaq al-Blat – alongside dozens of strikes in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.

• At 5 PM, Axios quoted U.S. officials stating that Hochstein had informed Lebanese Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri about “postponing his visit until Lebanon clarified its position on the settlement proposal”. According to these officials, the “ball is in Lebanon’s court, and the U.S. expected answers before Hochstein’s departure for Beirut”. By 5:45 PM, Lebanese Deputy Speaker Elias Bou Saab told CNN that Hochstein did not intend to make a “failed visit” to Lebanon but sought a trip focused on sealing an agreement. He acknowledged, however, that no official date for Hochstein’s visit had been set as of then.

• By 8:45 PM, Speaker Nabih Berri dispelled the rumours, confirming through Asharq Al-Awsat that Hochstein’s visit to Beirut was scheduled for Tuesday. He expressed surprise at the speculation about its cancellation, which had undermined the optimism for a political resolution over a military escalation. Just an hour earlier, Israeli Channel 12 reported that Hochstein would head to Beirut after receiving clarifications from the Lebanese side that could facilitate a settlement.

• This oscillation in messaging seems to reflect a calculated strategy. It highlights Israel’s waning ability to leverage force while signalling that any demands – such as unrestricted military access across Lebanese air, land, and sea – amount to stripping Lebanon of sovereignty. Although Israel lacks the military leverage to enforce such terms, the balance has yet to shift decisively enough for Israel to revert fully to Resolution 1701, which envisions a zone south of the Litani River free of heavy resistance weaponry. Under this framework, the coexistence of armed Lebanese villagers and resistance groups such as Hezbollah and Amal stands against settlers and their arms. However, maintaining strategic assets, like airspace dominance and occupying areas such as Shebaa Farms, remains critical for Israel’s control over war and peace dynamics.

• Hochstein’s calculated diplomacy and Netanyahu’s airstrikes share a singular objective: signalling dissatisfaction with Lebanon’s response to Hochstein’s proposal, co-authored with Ron Dermer, Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister. The dual tactics – escalating Israeli airstrikes, including three assaults on Beirut within 36 hours, and threatening to suspend Hochstein’s mission without cancelling it outright – serve to pressure Lebanon into modifying its stance. The implicit threat is clear: should Hochstein’s mission fail, Lebanon will face the brunt of intensified Israeli aggression. Lebanon, however, has repeatedly confronted such scenarios and has responded by holding firm to its position while the resistance strikes back at the heart of the occupying entity – Tel Aviv.

• Negotiations under fire will continue. The tug-of-war over Hochstein’s mission will likely resurface, but ultimately, it is the battlefield that dictates the parameters of power.