December 04, 2024
By Nasser Kandil
• It was almost a given for the Lebanese state to affirm its commitment to the ceasefire agreement between the resistance and the occupying army. However, as the occupying forces exceeded 100 violations within days, the resistance issued a warning response laden with messages, while the Americans, tasked with supervising the complaints committee responsible for monitoring breaches, exhibited a notable laxity. This raised a critical question: how serious is the commitment to an agreement meticulously crafted amidst delicate power balances forged through battles lasting over a year?
• The resistance clarified its position, reaffirming its commitment to the agreement while emphasising that it had granted the complaints committee ample time to address the occupying entity’s violations. Yet, it made clear that it would not remain silent in the face of further breaches unless the committee fulfilled its duties and upheld its responsibilities as outlined in the agreement. The situation has now become apparent: if the implicit U.S.-Israeli understanding is to set a precedent where the ceasefire is effectively one-sided – binding the Resistance while granting the occupying forces free rein to impose a “battle-between-wars” model reminiscent of the one applied in Syria – then the circumstances will inevitably revert to the state of war that preceded the ceasefire.
• The ball has now landed in the U.S.-Israeli court to reassess the balance of power and calculate the risks: either return to war or curb the aggressive violations and adhere to the agreement as it was originally designed, rather than some reinterpreted version crafted to suit U.S.-Israeli interests.
• Over the past hours, it appears that a reassessment has been conducted. Washington, followed by Tel Aviv, announced that maintaining the agreement is essential and prioritising its implementation is imperative. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, facing mounting domestic criticism that rejects his portrayal of victory, is compelled to comply with the agreement. Unlike the resistance’s supporters, who have already celebrated victory, Netanyahu cannot sell his narrative of success to a public grappling with the harsh realities of renewed conflict. A return to war would expose the home front to the intense trials of the resistance’s missiles and drones while pushing the Israeli military into confrontations it cannot sustain, especially given the lessons of the fierce cross-border battles that reached Tel Aviv.
• The reaffirmation of the ceasefire agreement suggests that the coming week will see a renewed effort to implement it. However, this implementation will likely be fraught with challenges, provocations, and complications.
