Washington and Paris Blame the Occupying Entity for Threatening the Ceasefire With 52 Violations /  The Resistance Issues a Warning Strike in Kfar Shuba and Shebaa Farms as the Occupying Entity Launches Airstrikes in the South and Bekaa

 December 03, 2024

The political editor wrote

Following statements of full support for Syria by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian official Masoud Pezeshkian, joint preparations with Russia, Iran, and resistance forces are underway for a counteroffensive to reclaim areas seized by terrorist groups led by Jabhat al-Nusra, with clear backing from Turkey and Qatar. Moscow and Tehran have also initiated political engagement with Ankara and Doha, urging them to withdraw support for the occupying terrorist groups and to denounce the aggression.
Moscow warns that this aggression risks derailing the Astana process and political resolution efforts, while Tehran frames it as a U.S.-Israeli maneuver aimed at countering resistance victories. This strategy, Tehran asserts, seeks to destabilise Syria, compromise its sovereignty, and sever resistance supply lines across Syrian territory.
Lebanon is grappling with escalating Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement. The Lebanese Army has documented 52 breaches, reporting the details to U.S. and French representatives on the complaints committee established to address such violations. Reports indicate that U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein and the French Foreign Ministry have sent stern messages to the occupying entity’s government, warning that these breaches threaten the agreement’s survival and questioning whether it intends to honor the terms.
In response to these violations, the resistance launched warning strikes on Israeli positions in the occupied Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shuba Hills. This prompted Israeli airstrikes in various areas of southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. However, Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer subsequently reaffirmed his government’s commitment to the agreement.
Sources monitoring the tense situation assert that the occupying entity’s attempt to replicate its “battle between wars” strategy in Syria as a model for the ceasefire is unacceptable. This strategy allows for continued daily violations while expecting the resistance to refrain from responding.
The resistance’s warning strike sent a clear message to the occupying entity’s government: it must choose between a full return to war or complete adherence to the agreement. The resistance remains committed to fulfilling its obligations under the ceasefire, provided the occupying entity does the same, starting with withdrawing to the Blue Line, including from the Lebanese part of the village of Ghajar, and halting airspace violations.
While the resistance prefers to avoid a return to war, it will not tolerate unchecked aggression if the agreement’s mechanisms fail. The responsibility now lies with the agreement’s sponsors – France and the U.S. – to ensure compliance. The decision rests with the occupying entity’s government: continue a war no one desires or abide by an agreement universally deemed necessary.