Unity of Arenas / Unity of the Fronts
On 09 December 2024, Bibi Netanyahu said: “The absolute victory they once mocked is now becoming a reality. Hamxs sought to unite the fronts but instead witnessed their complete disintegration.” Israel's war minister Gallant had mocked Netanyahu's catchphrase “absolute victory”. Netanyahu also claimed that "collapse of the Syrian regime is direct result of severe blows we have inflicted on Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran".
In August 2022, the "Jerusalem Brigades", the military wing of the Iranian-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad movement, announced the launch of an operation under the name "Square Unity" to respond to the Israeli attack that targeted the movement's sites in Gaza. The name “Unity of the Squares” seemed remarkable at the time, after it was used as a media slogan for the Iranian-backed armed forces in the Middle East region over the years, before it turned in the year 2022 into the title of the operation launched by the Al-Quds Brigades, and it has been talked about intensively since the seventh of last October. After Hamas's attack on Israel.
The concept of "unity of arenas" was widely circulated in the media outlets of the axis allied with Iran, and its intention was to unify the battlefields between these allies. In a research paper published by the Hadarat Center for Strategic Studies, military and security expert Abdullah Amin explains that the intent of this concept was that “there is a group of arenas of action, which includes a group of actors whose interests and goals intersect on hostility to one enemy, and that harming and preventing it.” Achieving its goals, and weakening it materially and morally, are all matters that serve the overall interests - worldly and hereafter - of these actors.” Amin continues, “This matter requires all of them to unite in confronting this enemy, striking it and targeting its interests, in a battle in which each of them has a share.”
The Zaidi and Jaafari Twelver sects differ from beginning to end. “The Zaidis are Sunni Shiites and Sunnis are Shiites.” These "arenas" include the Palestinian arena and the Lebanese arena in which Hezbollah was active and a group of Palestinian factions operating from Lebanon, in addition to the Syrian Golan, and from Yemen the Ansar Allah Houthi movement, and Iraq also participates through armed organizations linked to Iran.
In the battle between Israel and the Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements in Gaza, the concept of “united areas” was present as a pressure card on Israel and its allies on several fronts, the most important of which was the Lebanese front, through which Hezbollah says it was “distracting” the Israeli army from focusing on Gaza. Some bombing was recorded from the Golan Front in Syria, in addition to the Houthis launching missiles and explosive drones towards Israel from Yemen, while Iraqi armed factions are targeting American bases in Iraq.
This "pressure," as Muhannad Al-Haj Ali, a researcher at the Carnegie Institute, calls it, comes as "part of the principle of unity of arenas and constitutes a certain level of deterrence that these forces are trying to impose on Israel." This level was considered “new,” according to Haj Ali, in terms of “preoccupying the Israelis and raising the level of pressure on the United States of America, Israel’s main ally.”
Haj Ali likens the concept of “unit of arenas” to a mini “NATO” (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) for these armed movements, and this means “the exchange of military and technical expertise between these forces and the sharing of information, plans and fighting methods.” This matter, says Haj Ali, “Hamas has clearly benefited from it in the recent period,” which was evident in the organized military operation launched by the Al-Qassam Brigades on October 7th.
Hence, according to Haj Ali, the concept of “unity of the squares” does not necessarily mean going to a regional war, as was being marketed in the past, in the event that Israel crossed “red lines” related to Al-Aqsa Mosque, for example. Rather, Iran's allies today, Haj Ali continues, "distribute roles among themselves to distract Israel in its war against Hamas."
This, according to the Lebanese researcher, does not necessarily mean that Hezbollah in Lebanon may go to “suicidal” behavior and “all-out war” to change the rules of engagement on the ground. Rather, it was clear that the rules of engagement remain the same since the end of the July 2006 war. Everything that southern Lebanon has witnessed so far falls within it, awaiting any qualitative change in the future.
By early 2023 Hezbollah and Iran estimated that it was possible to act in this direction on the basis of thinking that Israel was not capable of going to war in all arenas at the same time, due to an underestimation of Israel's strength and in particular in view of events in its internal arena: division in the nation, the phenomenon of reluctance (non-voluntariness) and the erosion of the image of the Prime Minister Netanyahu from a strong and stable leader to a weak leader who does not control his government.
By early 2024 Said Mohamed noted there were Arabs and Muslims who sacrificed precious and precious things in order to support the people of Gaza, and they offered hundreds of martyrs and many times more wounded, and they still are. This was the jealous and proud Yemeni people, despite all the difficult suffering they are going through. He refused to stand by and watch, so that the hadith of the Noble Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) would then apply to him. So he fought the armies and fleets of America, Britain, the West, and some Arabs to lift the siege on Gaza, and he was still paying heavy prices because of that, without backing down from his position one iota, despite what he was exposed to. It was subjected to brutal and barbaric American and British bombing.
As for Hezbollah’s position , there was nothing wrong with it, as it provided hundreds of martyrs and wounded within four months, and many people from southern Lebanon were displaced from their villages and homes, because of its honorable position in support of Gaza, after it succeeded in dragging thousands of Zionist soldiers to northern occupied Palestine. With all their equipment, they were busy and suffered heavy losses, which greatly eased the Israeli military pressure on Gaza and the Palestinian resistance .
The same role was played by the resistance factions in Iraq, except that they directly targeted the head of the snake, represented by America, and bombed its bases in Iraq and Syria. They also bombed areas of occupied Palestine, and in return they were subjected to American aggression that resulted in the martyrdom of many resistance leaders, in blatant American support for crimes. The brutal Israeli entity in Gaza.
As for Syria, despite all the aggression it has been exposed to that threatens its existence, for more than 10 years, it was still paying the price for its positions in support of the nation’s issues, most notably the Palestinian issue. For this very reason, it was targeted by the American-Israeli duo, as American forces still occupy vast lands of Syria, while the Israeli entity launched attacks on it, which resulted in the death and injury of many Syrians, in addition to the material losses incurred as a result.
The Islamic Republic of Iran also did not hold back in offering everything it could to strengthen the front of the axis of resistance, against the Israeli, American, and British aggression against Gaza, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon, and for that it offered heavy sacrifices, without changing its principled positions in supporting the oppressed Palestinian people. Against Israeli barbarism, and in supporting the peoples of the region against American arrogance, Said Mohamed concluded.
When Pierre Gemayel, the founder of the Lebanese Kataeb Party, incorporated the phrase "Lebanon's power rests in its weakness" in Lebanese political literature, he did not regard it from a lens that focused on Lebanon's position in regional conflicts or foreign threats, instead, he considered his own party and leader's position and stance toward these conflicts.
While claiming a Lebanese movement cannot be powerful, for this power would be utilized against other political movements, it would later be revealed that those who preached and promoted the phrase had also been the ones who sought militarization and foreign support to use against other national groups and movements.
Despite the several interpretations that sought to validate its verity, including the contradictions found within the Lebanese reality, having the multi-sects and multi-political movements at their front, the phrase still crumbled. This was an integral consequence of the Israeli occupation's entrance to Beirut in June of 1982, the announcment of Bachir Gemayel as president, and the extension of the May 17 agreement in 1983 with Amin Gemayel, which was guised as surrender, but came as a means of normalization.
The former phase not only proved that "Lebanon's power rests in its weakness", but also aimed at justifying that weakness to serve the interests of foreign agendas that disrupted the country and its security, and sought to occupy and control it. However, it also launched a new counter-phase showing how power, in the right position, was the only correct and ideal way to defend Lebanon, liberate its lands, and interdict any aggression against it.
For over 40 years, the main question has been: What was preventing Israel from attacking and invading Lebanon, and attempting to reach the capital, Beirut? The response lies in another question: What forced Israel to retreat from Beirut, then Saida, then southern areas, to the "Blue Line", then completely withdraw from southern Lebanon and Western Bekaa in 2000?
Proponents claim the power of the resistance gave Lebanon the strength to defend itself and defy its enemies, making "Lebanon's power rests in its strength" the new proven reality, and inscribing it in governmental reports within "Army, People, and Resistance". Its inscription came by popular nature, further imposed by internal power scales. And since power must be developed, strategically, tactically, politically, and militarily, as well as practically and morally, with the enhancement of the enemy's power, it remains primarily bound to the initial project and goal. Protection, repulsion, and defense: these three givens are directly interrelated with the alliances that could be built, and the relations that are being established, not only because of the nature the Resistance was founded on, but also the nature of the Israeli occupation in the region, as part of the extensive American setting in the region, that was capable of striking all that was isolated and detached from its dynamic environment.
The "Unity of the Fronts" was theoretically defined as the institution of an alliance that counters Israeli aggression, that could entail any of these fronts. The definition was based on the development of security and military capabilities of nations within the Axis of Resistance and its organizations, while Israel makes threats of expansion, ambush, and war, consistently with the American institution in the region. If the "Unity of the Fronts" holds the Palestinian cause as its prominent core, then its defensive and defiant effects extend to all its contents. But how was that effectuated?
In his last interview with Politico, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said his goal was to "bring back all settlers that fled their houses in the north post-October 7, fearing the incursion of Hezbollah across the Palestinian-Lebanese border, and another operation resembling Hamas'." Netanyahu did not rule out the use of military means to achieve that, saying "It would be alright if there were diplomatic means."
His main incentive for plotting any military operation against Lebanon stems solely from the presence of Hezbollah near the Palestinian-Lebanese borders. He, or senior officials in the Israeli occupation government or the "army", do not legitimize their threats by claiming Hezbollah launched fire against Israel in solidarity with Gaza on October 8, because not even a ceasefire in Gaza, which extends to Lebanon simultaneously [as the precedent during the truce in November] was enough for them. Their statements, however, affirmed their need to push Hezbollah away from the borders to a distance of seven to 10 kilometers, reaching north Litani.
On the other hand, Hezbollah ascertained, on several occasions, and with the vow of its Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, that operations will cease on the northern front if a ceasefire was established in Gaza. The promised scenario was concrete but excludes times when the Resistance mobilizes to defend Lebanon according to the size of threats and challenges.
Moreover, the Islamic Resistance's decision to be integrated into this confrontation as a front that supports the Resistance in Gaza fulfills a role in the exhaustion of the Israeli occupation, and prevents it from executing any extensive military occupation against Lebanon, by showcasing its power within specific standards.
Therefore, the north Palestinian front emerges from a multi-front battlefield, both in support of Gaza and defense of Lebanon, and one subjected to "Israel's" threats of a full-scale war that official and popular communities pay the price for if Hezbollah was not pushed away from the border, not when ceasefire fails. There has not been any Israeli official statement declaring that what was demanded was solely a ceasefire from Hezbollah's side or one that demands the separation of the Lebanese South from Gaza in the sphere of the establishment of a ceasefire. On the contrary, Benny Gantz, a member of the Israeli War Cabinet, has announced just days ago, that any truce will not necessarily include Lebanon, and that the Israeli military will proceed with its operations against Hezbollah, regardless of the developments in Gaza.
Although Hezbollah was well aware of Israel's way of thinking, and approach to several matters across different fronts, it did not decide to join the frontlines on its own, or based on reasons it does not want to reveal. Hezbollah only used that obscurity against the occupation, whereas discourse on the topic was left extensive within the Lebanese stage. Regardless, and based on the occupation's threats and its maneuvers on the battlefield after October 7, all parameters raise one question: What has Hezbollah imposed since its intervention on October 8? What are the two possibilities?
First: In case there was an Israeli plot to conduct a military operation against Lebanon, regardless of the Resistance's supportive participation, then Hezbollah revealed through this participation the comprehensive dangers Israel could be exposed to and imposed new specific rules of engagement.
Second: In case no Israeli plot existed following October 7, then Hezbollah's participation forces the occupation to be warier than to seize the moment and launch an attack against Lebanon. In this case, the principle of defensive confrontation was induced against an enemy that does not respect official charters or accords, an enemy that can only be broken by force.
Considering both conjectures, the Wall Street Journal revealed on December 23 that US President Joe Biden convinced Netanyahu to revoke a preemptive strike against Hezbollah in Lebanon after Hamas' operation on October 7, to avoid a regional war.
Israel intending to escalate the situation into a regional war was then established as a fact. However, what was remarkable was the Americans' fear, that compelled Washington to prevent Israel from achieving its plan, not for the war itself, but for a wider confrontation. This confirms that if Israel does launch a military operation against Lebanon, which supports Gaza, then all fronts would intensely intervene to support Lebanon.
At this point, the United States acknowledges that the multi-fronts defend and support one another, centering Palestine in their midst, which should discourage Israel from further escalating the situation [alongside Hezbollah's capabilities and strength]. Consequently, Hezbollah's intervention to defend and protect Lebanon, while backing Gaza, has ignited the United States' fear of confrontations against the Lebanese Resistance, which would soon after transform into a regional confrontation.
Proponents claim this was how Hezbollah protected Lebanon against a wide-scale Israeli operation. The previous hypothesis theorized what would happen if a plot to invade Lebanon existed or not. Moving past that, if an Israeli military operation was carried out against Lebanon, then the occupation would have to face a Resistance force that was prepared and capable of retaliating to the "surprise", which kills in wars.
If it was not, on the other hand, then the rational question to ask would be: "What would Lebanon, Gaza's support, have lost?", noting that the Israeli occupation plots and threatens, not because Lebanon backs Gaza, but because it was by the occupation's borders and possesses all kinds of military capabilities.
Hezbollah operates within this paradigm with Lebanese constituents, not by what it knows and was certain of regarding "Israel's" intentions, but by a framework that reassures these constituents, even if they are not convinced due to the mystery of sensitive information. Proponents claim Lebanon's power rests within its Resistance's power, and the Resistance's power rests within the power of the fronts it was integrated with.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
