January 28, 2025
Nasser Kandil
• The stance of Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, rejecting the extension of the 60-day deadline immediately after its expiration, cannot be separated from the broader context of the ongoing war, which has raged for sixteen months across the fronts of Gaza and southern Lebanon. This war has been profoundly shaped by the significant contributions of the Yemeni front and other members of the Resistance Axis. The war’s trajectory, marked by surges and retreats, offers a comprehensive view that helps explain the rationale behind the actions of the resistance in Lebanon and Gaza. Despite their sacrifices and deep wounds, the resistance views the Israeli injuries as more profound, critical, and destabilising. This compels a firm stance against granting the occupation any opportunity to recover or project itself as victorious.
• Since the escalation of the war in Lebanon, the call for an immediate ceasefire has become a shared demand of the resistance in both Gaza and Lebanon, contingent upon the full withdrawal of the occupying forces without any security or political gains. In Gaza, the occupation initially refused outright to withdraw. As its forces began to experience exhaustion, the stance shifted to maintaining “security zones” essential to Israel’s interests and rejecting a ceasefire without achieving the goal of dismantling the resistance. When it became evident that this goal was unattainable, Israel tied a ceasefire to a prisoner exchange truce that excluded ending the war, promoting a “day after” theory centered on replacing Hamas’s governance in Gaza.
In Lebanon, the occupation’s stance mirrored this approach. Initially, it demanded the disarmament of the resistance, the establishment of a security buffer zone under its control, free ground movement in southern Lebanon, and aerial supremacy over the country. As its ground forces failed to achieve significant breakthroughs in Lebanon, these demands were lowered but still included negotiations under fire, with the disarmament of the resistance replaced by its withdrawal beyond the Litani River as stipulated in Resolution 1701.
• While the resistance in Lebanon and Gaza has endured heavy losses and made costly sacrifices, a closer examination reveals that the ceasefires on both fronts occurred only after the occupation failed to impose its conditions. It ultimately accepted what was previously unacceptable: the withdrawal of the demand to disarm the resistance and its destruction. This signaled an acknowledgment of coexistence with armed resistance movements along its northern and southern borders – previously deemed an existential threat to the Israeli entity. Furthermore, the occupation committed to agreements mandating its full withdrawal from Gaza and southern Lebanon, abandoning the concepts of buffer zones and security belts. This constitutes a strategic defeat for the occupation, obscured by the scale of destruction and bloodshed in Gaza and Lebanon.
• In recent days, the resistance in both Lebanon and Gaza has succeeded in containing its losses and regaining its footing, aided by a calm assessment of the balance of power, particularly after the arrival of President Donald Trump in the White House and the implications of his policies on this balance. Simultaneously, the resistance demonstrated its ability to employ soft power that respects agreements while asserting its influence over their implementation.
This is evident in two significant events: the popular campaign for martyrdom-inspired returns to occupied villages in southern Lebanon, symbolised by the bloodshed and sacrifices in Maroun Al-Ras, and the massive human mobilisation from southern to northern Gaza. Both events undermined the dream of a buffer zone created through forced displacement, which could not be achieved militarily. Villages along the southern Lebanese border and northern Gaza, which were meant to remain abandoned and serve as de facto security belts, witnessed the return of hundreds of thousands.
• Suddenly, the illusion of Israeli victory crumbled. The deep wounds inflicted on its army and settlers became evident, as did the moral superiority of the resistance’s supporters over the Israeli internal front. Thousands of Palestinians, hungry and ill, walked for hours to return to their destroyed, uninhabitable homes. Simultaneously, thousands of men, women, and children stormed the border villages in southern Lebanon where occupation forces were stationed, shattering the myth of uninhabitable zones and unspoken security belts.
• The tears of occupation soldiers as they withdrew from Netzarim epitomise Israel’s failure and sense of defeat, just as the refusal of settlers in northern Palestine to return to their settlements does. Meanwhile, the visible and organised military and administrative presence of Hamas in Gaza reflects a sense of victory, mirrored by the organised popular demonstrations in support of the resistance and the categorical rejection of any extension of the occupation’s withdrawal deadline. There is no longer any doubt whose hand prevails at the end of this fierce war.
