English translation of the Hebrew original.
What is happening on the northern front right now, and why should it concern us?
This is a somewhat long but very important thread. Let’s begin.
First, a summary of the figures since the beginning of the war:
- 14 Israelis killed.
- 511 Hezbollah attacks: rocket fire, anti-tank fire, attempted infiltrations, and even an anti-aircraft incident.
- 61,000 people evacuated from 42 communities along the confrontation line.
So far, Israel has avoided expanding the campaign in the north. It is trying to preserve the “deterrence equation,” which is not really delivering the desired result, because Hezbollah has maintained an average of eight attacks a day.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, Biden prevented a broad preemptive attack in the north. The approach he is now pursuing is an attempt to produce a diplomatic solution.
A diplomatic solution is not a bad thing at all. On the contrary, we should always prefer one when it achieves the objectives that have been set and saves the extraordinary waste of resources that war entails.
The problem begins when the political leadership has no clear political objectives it seeks to achieve through military or diplomatic efforts.
In an excellent article about a future war in the north, Yaakov Amidror identifies the central failure of the Second Lebanon War as the absence of a political objective we sought to achieve through the war.
This prevented the IDF from planning its war objectives and understanding when the fighting should end. It ultimately led to aimlessness and heavy losses, followed by withdrawal.
Without a defined political objective, launching a campaign in the north is a recipe for failure. But the absence of a political objective also brings us to the brink of failure on the diplomatic front.
According to a report in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, mediator Amos Hochstein—the same man who brought us the territorial-waters agreement—is now putting together another agreement, even worse than the previous one.
Under the agreement, Israel would be required to accept several conditions:
- Lebanon would receive ownership of Point B1 in Naqoura. This point commands a strategically important area and is also the starting point of the “buoy line” marking the maritime border with Lebanon.
- Israel would withdraw from the 13 disputed points as part of demarcating the Blue Line.
- Israel would withdraw from the Shebaa Farms and hand them over to international forces. This is, of course, territory that belonged to Syria until 1967, so Lebanon has no justification for a territorial claim to it.
All right, you say. Perhaps this could be worthwhile. But what does Israel receive in return?
Our compensation is that Hezbollah would “move away” five kilometers from the border, allowing the residents of the 42 evacuated communities to return without fearing that they will be slaughtered tomorrow morning like the communities around Gaza.
Yes. Take a moment to digest that.
Under Resolution 1559, passed in 2004, Hezbollah should already have been completely disarmed.
In 2006, after Israel withdrew from Lebanon, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 again stipulated that Hezbollah should be disarmed, and that armed personnel, weapons, and military equipment would be prohibited in southern Lebanon, except those belonging to the Lebanese army and UNIFIL.
What we have actually had since 2006 is Hezbollah continuing to entrench itself unhindered in southern Lebanon, right on the Blue Line. Northern communities face a constant threat of infiltration, anti-tank fire, and rocket fire, depending entirely on Hezbollah’s goodwill and whether it is “deterred.”
The American proposal is simply a disgrace.
In plain language, it asks Israel to give up territory under its sovereignty. In return, Hezbollah might partially comply with the UN resolution agreed upon in the 2006 ceasefire—a resolution that, of course, did not hold up.
So what should we do?
Very simply: create public pressure now for politicians to withdraw from this deal.
Instead, I will try to outline my view of the political objective Israel should set for itself in this theater, and how to achieve it:
Lebanon first. Hezbollah is not a conventional terrorist organization. It is an organization that has a state. Since 2018, it has controlled a majority of seats in the Lebanese parliament.
Hezbollah cannot be separated from Lebanon. Therefore, every demand should be addressed to the Lebanese state, recognizing it as the party responsible for the problem, rather than creating a distinction that relieves it of responsibility.
Implement Resolution 1701. Israel should demand that Lebanon implement Resolution 1701 without conditions, as agreed in 2006. Otherwise:
Israel will have to launch a military operation to reoccupy and demilitarize southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, to ensure the safety of northern residents.
If you have made it this far, please share the full thread so that more people can see it.
And, of course, you are welcome to discuss it in the replies.
Images and video attached to the original publication: Media 1 · Media 2 · Media 3 · Media 4 · Media 5 · Media 6 · Media 7 · Media 8 · Media 9 · Media 10 · Media 11 · Media 12