Al Jazeera Net correspondents
Beirut- With the end of the first month of the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip following the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation last October 7, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah appeared for the first time – today, Friday – in a speech that many around the world had been waiting for, as he would reveal one of the paths… The war and its parallel fronts.
In an initial reading of a speech that took more than an hour, Nasrallah seemed to be drawing the limits of his party’s role in the war, based on two main goals: stopping the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, and not allowing Israel to eliminate the Hamas movement and the Palestinian resistance under any circumstances, in exchange for moving the battle on the front. Lebanese, based on two factors: developments in the war in the Gaza Strip, and the behavior of the occupation forces towards Lebanon.
Highlights of the speech
Perhaps the speech of the Secretary of Hezbollah, which was characterized by the ambiguity of open possibilities, was loaded with basic messages that he released, the most prominent of which were:
- Emphasizing the Palestinianity of the decision to operate “Al-Aqsa Flood” and the secrecy of the operation that was carried out without the knowledge of the rest of the leaders of what they call the “Axis of Resistance,” and that the decisions of the various resistance factions come from their leaders, not from Tehran, despite its full support for them.
- Emphasizing Hezbollah’s involvement in the war, and enumerating the most prominent goals achieved by the Lebanese Front, by occupying and exhausting the occupation army, as he said that a third of the occupation army was on the northern front, and half of the naval capabilities, a quarter of the air force, and about half of the Iron Dome anti-systems were occupied, and about 43 nearby settlements were evacuated. From Lebanon.
- Addressing Washington as directly responsible for the Israeli aggression on Gaza, and that the fate of the war and the possibility of its expansion to other fronts depend on the behavior of the American administration in this direction.
- Saying that what was happening on the Lebanese front would not be satisfied with it, was followed by declaring readiness and preparations to confront the American fleets, and suggesting that Israel’s escalation with Hezbollah would lead to a regional war, as he told Washington, “Whoever wants to prevent a regional war must hurry to stop the aggression against Gaza.”
- Confirming the pivotal role of the resistance in Iraq, and the forces of those who call themselves “Ansar Allah” (Houthis) in Yemen, and the threat they pose to American interests in the region and its military bases, which have turned into one of the goals of what is called “confrontation and confrontation,” while it was noteworthy that there was no mention of the role of the Syrian Front. .
- Appealing to Arab countries and regimes to put pressure to stop the Israeli aggression, by calling for the use of their economic power and the interests that link them to Washington and Israel, such as gas, oil, and various supplies.
- Suggesting that the Lebanese border with occupied Palestine, in parallel with the military battles between Hezbollah and the occupation forces, will remain open for infiltration operations into the Israeli depths.
Nasrallah was clear by emphasizing that the fate of the region before the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation was not the same as after it, based on the return of the Palestinian issue to the forefront of the scene, and that the operation gained its legitimacy from 4 titles he mentioned: the file of thousands of prisoners in Israeli prisons, the file of Israel’s unprecedented persistence. By attacking the holy sites and Al-Aqsa Mosque, the dangers of threatening the West Bank with the expansion of settlement operations, and the unjust siege on two million people in the Gaza Strip.
Post-discourse scenarios
While some believe that Nasrallah’s speech did not live up to the expected level of escalation in support of the Palestinian resistance, researcher and political analyst Tawfiq Shoman believes that the importance of the speech lies in its starting from his lack of prior knowledge of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation in response to those who accuse the resistance factions of being an Iranian arm in the region.
He told Al Jazeera Net that Nasrallah tried to focus on the fact that goals are scored by points at the present time and not by knockouts, in response to those who ask, “When will Hezbollah enter the war?”
Shoman considered that Nasrallah conveyed clear threatening messages to Washington, and behind it, Israel, about the strength of his military arsenal ready for a regional war, and most importantly, “he mentioned the equation that there will be civilian versus civilian, going back to the 1986 war” if Israel decides to attack civilians in Lebanon.
In his opinion, the pace of the battle between Hezbollah and the occupation forces is still where it ended, and that its escalation by slipping into a war on Lebanon “will lead to a comprehensive war in the region that targets American interests first.”
The spokesman states that the fate of the Lebanese front is linked to the fate of the war on Gaza, and that the race is currently between the possibility of temporary truces and the continuation and expansion of the war to other fronts, while “Nasrallah transferred the decision from Tel Aviv to Washington, as an opening to negotiations and recalculations.”
Determinants of the discourse and its objectives
Maysam Rizk, an analyst and journalist in the Lebanese Al-Akhbar newspaper (pro-Hezbollah), says that Nasrallah outlined the broad outlines of the Zionist aggression against Gaza, on the basis that “Israel is the one that launched the war and defined its goals, most important of which is the elimination of the Hamas movement and the resistance factions and Hamas’ rule of the Strip, until… The matter reached the point of making contacts with the Americans to discuss plans to displace Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to Egypt and Jordan.”
The journalist told Al Jazeera Net that the speech of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah is an affirmation of confronting these lines, of pressure to stop the aggression, and “stressing that the enemy’s shedding of Palestinian blood and bombing of citizens’ homes and service facilities to emerge victorious will overthrow the rules of engagement in force on other fronts, and will put the region in front of A reality open to all possibilities.”
As for Nasrallah’s announcement of the goals of stopping the aggression against Gaza and not allowing the elimination of Hamas, according to the analyst, it expresses the character of the resistance movements in responding to Israeli attacks, and is considered a victory in itself, “just as its remaining at the head of the Gaza Strip and not liberating the prisoners except under conditions is also a victory.”
As for the two specifications announced by Nasrallah, according to the journalist, they are:
- Offensive selectorlinked to the course of the war, when he indicated that the resistance in Lebanon and the resistance movements in the region will initiate larger, broader and more comprehensive operations that may open all fronts, linked to the context of the political and military events and their resulting repercussions.
- Deterrent determinantlinked to the Lebanese arena and “controlling the Israeli madness in the case of thinking about attacking Lebanon, as Nasrallah warned against any miscalculations of the enemy, and the equation of civilian versus civilian.”
However, the essence of the speech – in the opinion of the journalist in the pro-party newspaper Al-Akhbar – is Nasrallah’s approach to Washington, as it is leading the war and mobilizing logistical, military and international support for Israel, and has the power to stop it, after Israel received the blow of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” and lost the initiative and control, and believes that Nasrallah unleashed He made a threat to Washington, the first of its kind, saying, “We have prepared for these American fleets that have come to threaten and deter us.”
The journalist concludes by saying that the Lebanese Front continues to play its role as an aid and support front for Gaza, and returns to the discussions taking place in Israel, Washington, and the decision-making capitals regarding war scenarios, as “there is a trend towards retreat and going for a humanitarian truce, and a serious and larger movement regarding the prisoners’ file, and all of it depends on the performance and steadfastness of the resistance in Gaza, and the movement.” political and popular issues in the region, and the operations of resistance movements in Lebanon and other arenas,” as these factors combined “will affect the context of the battle and its possibilities, facing a scene whose conclusion has not yet been written.”
