By Israel Piekarsh
In recent weeks, the impressive actions of the intelligence community and the IDF in Lebanon have joined the high motivation of our fighters on the front and the determination of Israeli citizens in the north of the country. These actions have indeed led to severe damage to Hezbollah's capabilities. At the same time, many residents of the north look with justified anger at the bunkers and cross-border tunnels destroyed by our forces in Lebanon. Where were the Israeli governments all these years?! And how is it possible that until a few weeks ago, many in Israel supported a diplomatic arrangement in Gaza and Lebanon without destroying these infrastructures?! These feelings of the northern residents are indeed justified, but unfortunately, no leadership in Israel will tell us the truth we so desperately need in times of crisis.
The history of Israel's wars in Lebanon proves that all the bunkers, missiles, and terror tunnels destroyed in war are rebuilt with great determination. The only factor that can prevent this is the Lebanese state. However, as long as our conflict with the Palestinians remains without hope for a diplomatic solution, and we do not have normalization with Saudi Arabia, and as long as the Gaza front remains open and images of the uninvolved and suffering population are broadcast on news channels in the Arab world, it will be impossible to expect Lebanese security forces to act resolutely against Hezbollah and betray Arab solidarity to assist Israel.
As such, in the immediate term, we only have bad options, and we need to choose the least bad option. If we try to stay in a security strip in Lebanon, we will declare a state of war with the Lebanese nation, and the residents of northern Israel can expect a decade of routine missiles and terrorist infiltrations. On the other hand, if we withdraw to the international border, it should be assumed that Hezbollah will rehabilitate its infrastructure on the border and resume attacking us in the north when the timing suits it. Alongside these dangers, there's also the fact that we don't have enough soldiers to effectively deal with a combined front in Gaza-West Bank-Lebanon (as evidenced by the intensifying attacks in the West Bank), and that our hostages are still languishing in Hamas tunnels, and the danger of a regional war with Iran, Iraq, and Yemen still looms over us and is dozens of times more dangerous than any other scenario in the north or south.
Therefore, the best option for us is an arrangement in Lebanon that will push Hezbollah beyond the Litani River and withdraw our forces back to the border. We should secure US backing for a diplomatic agreement that allows us to re-enter Lebanon if Hezbollah rebuilds its infrastructure and Lebanon fails to prevent it. After each such operation, we would withdraw to the international border. This cycle would continue as needed. This approach would gradually weaken Hezbollah while strengthening the Lebanese state, eventually leading us out of the crisis. Although I admit that it cannot be guaranteed with certainty that the international community will allow us to return to Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah's infrastructure, however, even today we are subject to unprecedented international pressure that hinders the IDF's progress. Therefore, compared to the other bad options, this is the best option. This is the optimal risk management that will allow the residents of the north to return to their homes at this time.
Iranian Chess
The trouble is that the Israeli government is choosing a different path of maximum territorial control on all fighting fronts. The Iranians identify this dangerous public sentiment and exploit it to their advantage to lure us into strategic chess. Recently, Hezbollah's deputy secretary-general Naim Qassem gave a speech in which he changed the organization's policy. As of now, the organization is ready for a ceasefire regardless of the Gaza front, but only on the condition that we first cease fire and only then discuss the terms of the arrangement. Meanwhile, until we respond to the offer, Hezbollah has increased its attacks on northern and central cities.
Hamas Terrorists. Source: Shutterstock.com
Several commentators pointed out that if Israel agrees to the ceasefire terms, we will lose the military initiative. Thus, Hezbollah will be able to demand later a full withdrawal of forces from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon or resume terrorist attacks. Our hands will be tied, our forces will be spread beyond our capabilities in Gaza, the West Bank, and a narrow strip of land in Lebanon, and Hezbollah will decide when and to what extent to resume the war. On the other hand, if we oppose the terms set by Hezbollah, we will act in clear contradiction to the interest of the White House, which is demanding a ceasefire. As a result, American armament may be delayed and our forces will be stuck in Lebanese - and again Hezbollah will increase its attacks and gain the unity of the arenas.
This means that Hezbollah has not surrendered and is not offering a real separation between Lebanon and Gaza, but only a new and more sophisticated flexibility of the Iranian concept of "Unity of Arenas". In other words, as I argued in my previous article, the current campaign in Lebanon was opened after we refused to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, and during a dire economic situation and defiance against the US and France's call for a ceasefire - and therefore we fell into a strategic ambush. The ingenuity of Israel's security forces, coupled with the astonishing determination of Israeli society, may be squandered due to the lack of political vision and the disconnection from reality exhibited by many supporters of the current government. Too many on the Israeli right have not yet awakened after October 7.
Israel needs a policy change
Therefore, I would like to propose a strategic alternative. Although it is to be assumed that the Israeli government will continue to strive for military control in the Gaza Strip and additional territories, I believe there is public value in presenting another alternative that will succeed in extricating us from distress in the short term and give us hope in the long term. The heads of state should declare a change of policy on all fronts of the fighting in order to achieve, as much as possible, three objectives: the release of the hostages, damaging the ability of terrorist organizations to recover, and avoiding overextension of our forces.
In the Gaza Strip, we should declare in advance that we are willing to withdraw all our forces in exchange for a hostage deal. In any case, we will support the rehabilitation of the Strip, protect the uninvolved Palestinian population and its rights to the best of our ability, and we will not establish Israeli settlements in the Gaza territory. Alongside this, we will allow the Palestinian Authority to gradually gain control over the area with the assistance of international organizations. Although there is dangerous incitement within the Palestinian Authority, we should address it through the process of Amnesty and Protection that our movement offers. However, at this time, this is the least dangerous alternative.
In Lebanon, we should reject Hezbollah's terms and temporarily continue the military campaign. But alongside this, we should immediately clarify that we will withdraw our forces to the international border unilaterally when we finish dismantling Hezbollah's infrastructure in southern Lebanon and within a timeframe coordinated with the US. Alternatively, we will agree to withdraw immediately and cease fighting if a hostage deal is implemented in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah publicly declares its willingness to withdraw beyond the Litani River. The Lebanese state and international forces will guarantee this.
On the diplomatic level, we should change our approach towards our great ally, the United States, which has agreed to assist us in countless ways over the past year. We should coordinate with them all expected moves in Iran, strive for normalization with Saudi Arabia, and listen carefully to American interests in the region. In exchange for this, we should ask the White House to publicly state that the US recognizes our future right to protect ourselves. This includes going back into Gaza and Lebanon when necessary to stop Hamas and Hezbollah from rebuilding their forces and bases early on, but only when local forces fail to do so. Then we will withdraw again, and so on. This is the least dangerous option available to us.
UN Security Council. Source: Shutterstock.com
From a moral and long-term perspective, we should declare recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people, our support for a process of mutual amnesty between the peoples, and striving for a vision of Two States, Two Communities. Although this is a long-term declaration that is not connected to the current reality, nevertheless it has great importance as it will lead to the creation of new political forces in Israel and Arab countries that will weaken the Iranian axis in a determined and long-term manner.
This policy on all fronts can lead to the creation of a new and united internal coalition between the Israeli majority in the center-right and the left. Only in this way can we achieve stability in the immediate term, and hope for a better future for our grandchildren in the long term.
Commentaires