As Hezbollah Regroups, the Endgame of Israel’s War on Lebanon Remains Unclear

“Not every objective can be achieved through military means.” Those were the words of Israeli war minister Yoav Gallant on October 28, commenting on Israel’s war on Lebanon. “Painful compromises will have to be made,” he said.

Gallant’s comments came amid Israeli reports of a possible deal to end the war in Lebanon drafted by U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein. However, on Wednesday, the newly elected Secretary General of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, said in his inauguration speech that talks about a potential deal were “noise without results.” Qassem insisted that Hezbollah’s position is to have a ceasefire first, and then negotiate the details of a lasting agreement.

Nearly a month ago, Gallant’s rhetoric was different. The war minister took pride that Israel had, in his words, “destroyed most of Hezbollah’s infrastructure,” pledging not to stop the war until the Lebanese resistance group’s “full destruction.”

At the time, Israel had assassinated several top-ranking military and political leaders in Hezbollah, including its iconic Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah, in the wake of the exploding pager and electronics attacks in mid-September. Israel was at the height of its euphoria, which gave it the confidence to escalate its attacks and launch a ground invasion. Even ten days ago, Gallant was saying that Israel had moved from “the phase of defeating Hezbollah to the phase of destroying it.” But Gallant’s tone would shift in a matter of days.

What happened in the interim was that Hezbollah regrouped and redoubled its military efforts in repelling the Israeli onslaught. Instead of collapsing after the assassination of its entire top military echelon, rocket fire from Lebanon increased in intensity and destructive capacity, challenging Israeli claims that the majority of Hezbollah’s arsenal had been destroyed or disabled. Haifa came under fire, as well as Akka and the northern suburbs of Tel Aviv. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s residence in Caesarea was also struck by a drone while he was absent from his house.

Israel started its ground invasion of Lebanon in the first week of October, officially aiming to clear southern Lebanon of Hezbollah’s presence and create a buffer zone that might extend up to the Litani River. Weeks passed with combat barely advancing past those same areas, mostly centering around the villages of Idaiseh and Kufr Kila in the south’s eastern block, the villages of Yaroun, Rmeish, and Aita al-Sha’ab in the central block, and the villages of Ramia, Marwahin, Deheira, and Naqoura in the western block. It was in the western block where Israeli forces first tried to take cover from Hezbollah’s fire behind the international peace-keeping forces and later opened fire at them.

Although Israel carpet-bombed several Lebanese border villages and towns and even reached several military tunnels near the border, its soldiers continued to come under fire and sustain heavy losses on both sides of the blue line. Earlier this week, the Israeli army admitted to the death of 15 soldiers, including officers, and the wounding of 60 others within 48 hours. Hezbollah, for its part, claims that its guerrillas have killed no less than 90 Israeli soldiers and officers while wounding over 600 since the beginning of Israel’s ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

Into the Quagmire

What Israeli military officials have begun to understand, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz, is that the operations in Lebanon have exhausted their objectives. Prolonging them will only result in more casualties.

In the face of this seemingly immobile situation, some voices in the Israeli military have begun pressure to reach a “political agreement” to avoid ending the Lebanon offensive with nothing to show for it — a repeat of the 2006 war with Hezbollah.

This is the crucial context within which to understand U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein’s comments on Thursday. The former Israeli soldier-turned-U.S. diplomat told the Lebanese state that it shouldn’t allow Hezbollah to tie Lebanon’s fate to “other conflicts in the region” — referencing Hezbollah’s insistence on maintaining a “support front” for Gaza until Israel halts its genocidal war.

Right before Hochstein’s arrival, Israel had given the U.S. a document stating its conditions for a ceasefire with Lebanon. It included allowing Israel to operate freely in Lebanese territory and airspace at any point in the future.

The Lebanese government, represented by Prime Minister Najib Miqati and the Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri (who Hezbollah delegated to negotiate in its name), rejected the proposal.

Ahead of Hochstein’s current visit to the region, Israeli media reported on the potential deal that would lead to the cessation of hostilities. According to Axios, the proposal was based on an amended version of UN Resolution 1701, which ended Israel’s 2006 war on Lebanon. The proposal, according to Axios, stipulated that there would be a ceasefire announcement followed by 60 days of a halt in fighting. During that time, Hezbollah would pull back heavy parts of its weaponry north of the Litani, while Israel would gradually withdraw its troops behind the blue line. This would be followed by the deployment of 8,000 troops from the Lebanese army along the border.

The Axios report indicates that the U.S. believes Hezbollah, after being dealt a crippling blow following the assassination of its top leaders, might be persuaded to end its operations against Israel and give up on its support of Gaza.

This seems to be a general belief among Western allies of Israel. A week ago, Germany’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock said during a visit to Beirut that she believed that Israel had “succeeded in significantly weakening” Hezbollah. A few days before visiting Beirut, Baerbock had publicly justified Israel’s bombing of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon “to defend itself.”

Amid this conflicting rhetoric, including the Israeli military’s own admission of its incapability in achieving Israel’s goals through military means, diplomatic moves continue to scramble for a way out of the Lebanese quagmire — including by reviving hopes for a Gaza ceasefire.

On Sunday, Israel’s Mossad chief arrived in Qatar to meet with the chief of the CIA and the foreign minister of Qatar to discuss the revival of a ceasefire in Gaza. On Wednesday, the spokesperson of Qatar’s foreign ministry, Majed al-Ansari, said that “progress was made” towards a ceasefire in Gaza. Axios reported that CIA’s William Burns was drafting a proposal that would include a month-long ceasefire and the release of eight Israeli captives by Hamas in exchange for Israel’s release of dozens of Palestinian prisoners.

The reported proposal doesn’t address the key issues that led to the failure of previous ceasefire talks, namely Israel’s refusal to leave the occupied Philadelphi and Netzarim corridors and its refusal to definitively end the war. However, the attempt to revive the talks indicates a need to reach an agreement, which would make a permanent agreement with Hezbollah possible.

Responding to Netanyahu’s Race Against Time

Meanwhile, Naim Qassem reaffirmed on Thursday that the movement had rebuilt its command and control structure and that its fighting capacities were intact, repudiating Hochstein’s expectations that Hezbollah is prepared to fold. Hezbollah’s position also increases the difficulty of Netanyahu’s race against time.

For one, the Israeli Prime Minister realizes that his bet to break the Lebanese resistance has failed, and his army is telling him that the time has come for political solutions. In addition, he knows that the upcoming vote in the U.S., regardless of who wins, will free the incoming U.S. administration from electoral calculations to push harder to end the war on both fronts — in Lebanon and in Gaza.

This might explain Gallant’s instructions to Israeli troops in Gaza on Wednesday to exercise “as much military pressure as possible in order to free the hostages.” These instructions have coincided with Israel’s ongoing brutal assault on northern Gaza, as Israeli forces rush to complete the destruction of all foundations of life in Jabalia, Beit Lahia, and Beit Hanoun, with the aim of expelling as many Palestinians as possible.

A month after Israel began its offensive on Lebanon, Netanyahu stood before the UN and claimed to be bringing about “a new Middle East.” The prospects of ending the war and the year-long Israeli onslaught across the region may result in a new Middle East, but it will look very similar to the old one. The only difference will be over 43,000 dead bodies, piles of ruins, and the collapse of the “rules-based international order.”