January 04, 2025
Nasser Kandil
• Many developments point to different internal and external interpretations of the balance of power following the war fought by the resistance against the occupying entity’s army. These interpretations extend beyond the war’s cumulative outcome to include its implications in Syria and their reflection on this balance. It is now undeniable that the occupier – backed by an emboldened American player reveling in Donald Trump’s presidency, along with regional and Lebanese actors both major and minor – operates on the assumption that Hezbollah is a defeated force in denial, compelled to acknowledge a new reality.
• What transpired at Beirut Airport early yesterday exemplifies this belief. Such an incident would have been unimaginable a year or two ago. However, during the war, an Iranian plane was denied landing rights at Beirut Airport after an Israeli warning, under the pretext of avoiding an Israeli strike. This same pretext was invoked by the Interior Minister to justify discriminatory measures against an Iranian plane and its passengers, primarily from Hezbollah’s community, while sparing other flights and passengers arriving at the airport.
• Arab and Lebanese media and politicians now routinely acknowledge that the ceasefire agreement is an extension of Resolution 1701, which had persisted for 18 years without mandating the disarmament of the Resistance. Yet, they now argue that circumstances have changed. According to them, Hezbollah’s supposed defeat necessitates accepting the Israeli interpretation of the agreement or the resolution – no distinction made. Their assertion is that the era of arms has ended, and unless Hezbollah complies, “Israel” will not cease its actions in southern Lebanon. This rhetoric echoes claims from the early days of the 2006 war, when many argued the war would not end unless Hezbollah disarmed. Now, they add new layers to their narrative: Hezbollah failed to deliver on the deterrence it promised before the war, and Syria – once the geopolitical and military cornerstone of the Resistance axis – has shifted direction. Syria, now boasting under its new leadership, claims to have neutralised Hezbollah’s threat to “Israel” through its territory. It no longer aims to challenge “Israel” even amid continuous Israeli airstrikes targeting the Syrian army’s inherited capabilities or incursions into Syrian territory. This reversal, its proponents argue, rivals the magnitude of the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon – a comparison now shaping Lebanon’s presidential elections.
• Against this backdrop, Resistance adversaries believe this scenario will continue to unfold, eventually impacting Yemen and reverberating into Iran. This narrative directly influences discussions around the ceasefire agreement, which stipulates the withdrawal of occupying forces from all Lebanese territories up to the Blue Line and the cessation of violations in southern Lebanon. The deadline for these obligations expires on the 27th of this month. However, skeptics argue that the occupier will persist in its actions as long as Hezbollah refuses to acknowledge defeat or place the future of its arms on the negotiation table – a condition tied to halting Israeli incursions. They contend that Lebanon’s security hinges on U.S. guarantees, implicitly tied to ending Hezbollah’s armament.
• Regardless of the debate over the value of American or other guarantees to deter Israeli aggression, U.S. positions consistently reflect an unwavering readiness to support Israeli hostilities. The pivotal question remains: what will happen on the 61st day of the ceasefire, January 27th?
If Israeli violations cease and withdrawal occurs as agreed, it will signify that the Israeli interpretation of the balance of power diverges from the public narrative of victory presented to its audience. It would confirm that the occupier’s leadership fears a losing confrontation with the Resistance. In this scenario, the disappointment will fall on Lebanese and Arab voices who propagated the narrative of the Resistance’s defeat.
Conversely, if violations and incursions persist, with Israeli forces remaining on even an inch of Lebanese land slated for withdrawal, then the Lebanese people – especially in the south – alongside the Resistance, will face an inevitable confrontation. This confrontation must wield sufficient strength, intensity, and efficacy to redefine the balance of power unequivocally. The stakes are nothing less than the future of Lebanon’s independence and the legacy of its people’s sacrifices.
• The 61st day will undoubtedly be decisive, one way or another.
