By: Wissam Rafidi
As I write this article, the ceasefire in Lebanon has taken effect — but if a renewed campaign against Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance has not already begun, it is only a matter of hours before it does. Perhaps it could even be said that its early signs began before the ceasefire agreement was announced. This campaign will be launched by sectarian forces who view Shia Muslims and Iran as their enemies, not the Zionist project or the genocidal state. It will include journalists and media figures working for newspapers and TV channels that have openly opposed the resistance since day one of the Al-Aqsa Flood battle, promoting the occupation’s narrative.
Most likely, the narrative of this campaign will rest on several points, which this article seeks to address. Chief among them is the claim that Hezbollah betrayed the Palestinian resistance by agreeing to a ceasefire that does not address Gaza, despite consistently emphasizing the connection between the two fronts. These sectarian forces and media figures will persistently push the idea that the Axis of Resistance has collapsed, ending alongside it unity among associated fronts. Promoting this notion has been their wish prior to October 7th.
For those closely following the discussions, leaks, and even the speeches of Sheikh Naim Qassem, it was evident that Gaza would not be part of this agreement. From various statements and hints, one could speculate that a separate negotiation concerning Gaza might be happening in parallel, without being officially linked to the Lebanon talks. However, such speculation does not amount to concrete evidence. The fact remains that an agreement was signed without addressing Gaza, and this needs to be examined to understand the reasons behind it. Was it a “betrayal” of Gaza by the Lebanese resistance? Were there new political and military developments since last September that prevented Gaza from being part of the discussions? Or is there something undisclosed concerning Gaza?
To delve into this issue, we need to start with what we believe are undeniable truths that have emerged with the announcement of the agreement:
1. Victory for the Strong or Defeat for the Enemy
The powerful entity that is the genocidal state is either victorious or defeated—there is no middle ground. This was reflected in the latest Israeli public opinion poll, where 69% of Israelis believed that Israel had not defeated Hezbollah. Statistically, this can also mean that 69% think that Israel was defeated because it failed to defeat Hezbollah. Thus, Hezbollah emerged victorious. This sentiment is reinforced by statements from settlement leaders and Netanyahu’s remarkably evasive recent speech, leaving no doubt that the genocidal state is reeling from defeat with far-reaching future repercussions similar to what followed the October 7 incursion and the heroic resilience in Gaza for the past 14 months.
2. The Real Reason Behind the Ceasefire
Analysts and media commentators may offer various explanations for why the genocidal state agreed to a ceasefire, but we believe that the primary reason was its defeat in ground warfare in Lebanon, particularly in the battles of Khiam, Kfar Kila, Shamaa, and Al-Bayyadiah (from which the Golani Brigade commander was reportedly sent home).
The genocidal state also suffered a series of missile strikes on sensitive, strategic targets, most notably Netanyahu’s house—a symbolic and unprecedented psychological and political blow in the history of this struggle agains the occupation—and the air force commander’s headquarters, as Hezbollah announced last Tuesday night. On Sunday, the barrage of approximately 320 rockets delivered a clear message to Israel: “We know how to negotiate, impose our terms, and make you retract yours.” Tracking the sequencing of Israeli concessions leading up to the agreement reveals that the battlefield, Lebanese resistance fighters, and their accomplishments were the driving force behind this process.
Claims by the genocidal state of having destroyed 80% of Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal have proven to be nothing more than failed propaganda. It has also become clear that the pager strikes, the assassination of Hezbollah’s Secretary-General and the military leadership, and similar operations have failed to break the party’s resolve, which has visibly regained its capabilities in a remarkable timeframe on the battlefield. From Netanyahu’s minister of war boasting about “crushing Hezbollah” to calls for disarming the group and attempts to alter Lebanon’s political system, the Israelis achieved nothing but the implementation of the UN Resolution 1701—a resolution Hezbollah had already agreed to back in 2006.
3. Criticism from Those Who Shed No Blood
Those who will launch campaigns of doubt and attack against the agreement and Hezbollah—whether they are politicians, sectarians, media figures, or dependent regimes, including the Kataeb Party (Phalangist Party) and the Lebanese Forces—have not shed a single drop of blood, nor fired a single bullet, in the history of struggle against the Zionist entity and its Western allies.
In contrast, Hezbollah has sacrificed thousands of fighters, martyrs, and wounded (the Pager operation alone injured 4,000 of its members) in defense of Gaza and Lebanon. The Zionist aggression displaced 1.4 million Lebanese and destroyed hundreds of homes and facilities in the south, Dahiyeh, Tyre, and Sidon—all as the price for Hezbollah’s stance. Most notably, Hezbollah also sacrificed its entire first-tier military leadership, led by the Secretary-General, the “Master of Martyrs” (Leader Nasrallah represents a symbol of resistance against the Zionist occupation and is internationally regarded as an anti-imperialist figure).
4. Failed Attempts to Incite Internal Discord
The attempt to incite internal turmoil in Lebanon to target Hezbollah and its fighters in the south, creating a second military and political front, was a serious gamble. This effort was openly supported by Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador Johnson, as well as key figures from the Lebanese Forces, Kataeb parties, and the Sunni bloc led by Ashraf Rifi. Furthermore, numerous press reports indicated that armament taking place in some areas, seemingly in preparation to open a front against the resistance from behind. This strategy, however, completely failed, and this failure may have been a significant factor in Netanyahu’s decision to agree to the ceasefire.
5. The Sacrifice of the Lebanese People
The Lebanese people paid a heavy price, with large numbers displaced and widespread destruction in Hezbollah’s core areas—Dahiyeh, the south, Tyre, and Sidon. It is only natural that Hezbollah’s support base, which bore the brunt of this devastation, would demand a serious effort to secure a ceasefire, and from a position of strength, not weakness. This demand, as I believe, was the guiding principle in Hezbollah’s negotiations and the primary reason for its agreement to the ceasefire—an entirely understandable position.
Additionally, two other players seem to have influenced Hezbollah’s decision. The first is Nabih Berri, whom Hezbollah entrusted with the negotiation file out of necessity. The second is the Lebanese government, which cannot be described as supportive of the resistance but nonetheless became involved in the negotiations, albeit for situational reasons. Both actors likely had a negotiating ceiling lower than what Hezbollah might have sought under different circumstances.
Taking into account the realities of Hezbollah’s battlefield victory, its achievements in ground warfare, the successful missile and drone strikes on key enemy positions, its restoration of full combat and missile capabilities as they were before September 17th, and the defeat of the genocidal state, as well as the collapse of plans to open a hostile political and military front against the resistance in Lebanon and the clear support from its base for the choice of resistance—given all of this, could the terms of the ceasefire have been more powerful? Specifically, could the agreement have been tied to halting the aggression on Gaza, as a primary condition, as Hezbollah had consistently declared since October 8th?
Our Palestinian people whose blood has been intertwined with the blood of the Lebanese and their heroic resistance in the south, have the right to ask this question. And given Hezbollah’s remarkable stance and sacrifices for Palestine and Gaza, they deserve a timely and clear answer from the party. This is not to overlook the complexities of Lebanon’s internal front, where not all factions support the resistance, as some align with it but with lower expectations, while others actively oppose it. Nor does it ignore the immense sacrifices made by Hezbollah’s popular base.
Finally, perhaps Osama Hamdan’s (senior representative of Hamas in Lebanon) recent statement to Al-Mayadeen, known for his careful phrasing, offers part of an answer. He affirmed that the Palestinian resistance maintains constant coordination with Hezbollah and is fully aware of the ongoing developments. Could there be something yet to be announced that might bring an end to the Zionist aggression against our people in Gaza, relying first and foremost on the resistance within Gaza itself?
