Those of us who understand how Biden operates knew intuitively that there was heavy pressure being put on Netanyahu to agree to the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. That ceasefire was approved by the Political-Security Cabinet last night – with 10 for and National Security Minister Ben Gvir opposed – and went into effect this morning at 10 AM.
Our prime minister made it clear in the course of his announcement to the nation last night. He listed the benefits that would be derived from this ceasefire.
One of three benefits he spoke about concerned “replenishing supplies”: “There have been delays in weapons and ammunition deliveries, which are expected to resume soon.”
He could not have gotten more direct than this without calling out Biden and his henchmen by name.
Those supplies, which Israel has already paid for, and which have met with “processing delays,” are important for finishing the job against Hamas in Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
And there is more, as individuals concerned about Israel have begun speaking out with anger. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), a long-time friend to Israel, had this to say:
“Obama-Biden officials pressured our Israeli allies into accepting the ceasefire by withholding weapons they needed to defend themselves and counter Hezbollah, and by threatening to facilitate a further, broader, binding international arms embargo through the United Nations. Obama-Biden officials are already trying to use Israel’s acceptance of this ceasefire to ensure that Hezbollah and other Iranian terrorist groups remain intact across Lebanon, and to limit Israel’s future freedom of action and self-defense. Administration officials, including Secretary of State Blinken, today even downplayed Israel’s right under the ceasefire to strike terrorist groups in Lebanon when those groups pose imminent threats.” (Emphasis added)
~~~~~~~~~~
Of the “benefits” of the ceasefire that are being enumerated (obviously other than the important acquisition of the arms that have been delayed by Biden and an implicit commitment by the president to veto UNSC resolutions harmful to Israel’s military efforts), the only one that seems valid to me on the face of it is giving our soldiers – particularly our reserve units – a badly needed rest.
Netanyahu spoke in his address to the nation about the benefit of separating the fronts and isolating Hamas: “From day two of the war, Hamas was counting on Hezbollah to fight by its side. With Hezbollah out of the picture, Hamas is left on its own. We will increase our pressure on Hamas and that will help us in our sacred mission of releasing our hostages.”
But it is more complicated than this.
Just yesterday, immediately prior to the implementation of the ceasefire in Lebanon, Secretary of State Blinken indicated that this would boost efforts to secure an end to the war in Gaza.
However, you can rest assured that he was not referring to an increased ability by Israel – undeterred by fighting in the north – to drive Hamas to the point of surrender.
He was talking about a ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza. A deal that would move the IDF out of Gaza and leave a weakened Hamas still standing. This is something the Biden administration has been pushing for right along. The leaders of the current administration have no desire to see Hamas surrender. Had they, they would not have withheld weapons from Israel that would have helped make it possible to achieve that goal by now.
I ask myself what leverage Biden might utilize in an effort to get us to do this. Hey, he got us to agree on one front, why would he stop now?
~~~~~~~~~~
And now Hamas has taken the lead. Seizing an opportunity, they have indicated they are ready for “a ceasefire agreement, with a serious deal to exchange prisoners.” With Sinwar out of the picture, it remains unclear who speaks for Hamas.
My response to this, standing on one foot: Netanyahu was envisioning increased pressure on Hamas that would bring the group to its knees. However, what is already potentially evolving here is not a situation that puts increased pressure on Hamas, but one that instead seeks to provide Hamas with a release from pressure via a premature ceasefire.
The term “exchange of prisoners” puts my back up badly. The innocent Israelis held by Hamas who are suffering horrendously should not be equated with the terrorists in our prisons who committed serious crimes against Israelis.
There is no doubt that Hamas would demand the release of a number of “quality” prisoners with blood on their hands, who would to some significant degree return to their terrorism. But I don’t see that Hamas is saying they are prepared to release all of the hostages, and we should certainly not assume that this would be the case (short of our total withdrawal from Gaza, which will not happen). They are playing with us. But the pressure on us to accept some sort of deal will increase.
~~~~~~~~~~
I am on record as believing Bibi Netanyahu has done a superb job standing against Biden’s demands. In this instance, because of what he was facing, I don’t believe he erred in agreeing to the ceasefire. I think he really had no choice, given what was being held over our heads.
But I remain concerned about what he might be facing down the road in Gaza and recognize that an enormous strength will be required. Blinken maintains that Israel has already achieved its “strategic goals” in Gaza, but this is not the case. Nor is it the case that the two situations are parallel.
Let us leave this now – I will return to the various parameters in due course – and watch first what happens in the next few weeks in Lebanon. A great deal remains unknown.
~~~~~~~~~~
In his address to the nation, Netanyahu declared that “With the United States’ full understanding, we maintain full freedom of military action.”
But even as he enumerated situations in which Israel would be free to act – if Hezbollah tries to arm itself; if it tries to rebuild terrorist infrastructure near the border; if it launches a rocket, if it digs a tunnel, if it brings in a truck carrying rockets – this bewildered me.
What happened to the “monitoring mechanism” that has been alluded to frequently in recent days and which is apparently mentioned in the final agreement? This was to be some sort of small consortium of nations headed by the US that would make decisions on when the IDF would be justified in acting militarily against Hezbollah. We will leave aside for the moment that France, the only country named in addition to the US, has been hostile to Israel of late. (Israel only assented to France’s participation when Macron withdrew his statement that they would arrest Netanyahu, per the ICC warrant, were he to come to France.)
Elder of Zion makes some pertinent observations with regard to this. He quotes Biden:
“If Hezbollah or anyone else breaks the deal and poses a direct threat to Israel, Israel retains the right to self-defense, consistent with international law — just like any country when facing a terrorist group pledged to that country’s destruction.” (Emphasis from the Elder)
Writes Elder: “Biden seems to be saying that Israel can attack but only under circumstances where international law allows it, in self-defense. Netanyahu is saying that any Hezbollah violation, even if it doesn’t directly threaten Israel, is a reason to attack…
“I…don’t see where this agreement gives Israel the right to attack, say, Hezbollah digging a tunnel, at least not during the 60 days.
https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2024/11/what-exactly-does-lebanon-cease-fire.html
The question then is whether there is some private understanding between the US and Israel on these matters. There have been allusions to such a possibility. Or, whether Netanyahu, eager to reassure, has put a gloss on the situation that is not quite realistic.
~~~~~~~~~~
We must remind ourselves that Hezbollah is not a direct party to the agreement, which is between Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah and Israel. There are two major factors at play. One is the question of how Hezbollah will behave. And the other, most critical, is the question of enforcement by the Lebanese army.
And I should add a third: how quickly Israel will respond if a violation is detected.
I note that Elder observes that according to 1701 Hezbollah was to be disarmed everywhere in Lebanon (which never happened). But this agreement, supposedly based on 1701, calls for disarmament of Hezbollah only in the south. This means, we can conclude, that if Hezbollah, forced back behind the Litani, subsequently crossed over to the south, they would come armed.
We can only watch and wait. It is possible that we won’t have to wait long. Residents of the north of Israel, who are being reassured that they will be able to return to their homes soon, do not trust the situation and are not willing to return.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please, pray with a full heart…
[] for the safety of the Jewish People everywhere,
[] for the continued strength and courage of Israel’s leaders as they make the hard decisions,
[] for the safety of our soldiers in battle as they fight a righteous war,
[] and for the rescue of the hostages.
~~~~~~~~~~
©Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by independent journalist Arlene Kushner. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
