Fears that Israel does not adhere to withdrawing at the agreed time

With the approaching date of the eighteenth of this month, which is the date for the completion of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, fears are exacerbated, specifically with the increase in the pace of Israeli violations, in quantity and quality, from the presentation of Tel Aviv with new arguments and justifications for the lack of withdrawal. Paula Istah wrote in “Al -Sharq Al -Awsat”: The military and strategic expert is the retired Dean, Elias Hanna, that to answer the possibility of Tel Aviv’s adherence to the new deadline, “It is assumed that a group of questions related to the decisions that the Lebanese state will make, whether in terms of political decisions and then military. And he asked: “Will the occupied lands be liberated by military force or diplomacy? And if it adopts the second option, then what is required of it is the implementation of what it happened because it seems clear that the dismantling of the (Hezbollah) system in the south has not yet happened completely, and that the deployment of the army does not mean the withdrawal of the party’s elements with their weapons, ”noting in a statement that it must be determined” any army. And according to any military doctrine, you want it, knowing that we believe that it can benefit from the (Hezbollah) fighting experience … but all of this needs a strategic vision that does not exist until now. Hanna notes that “Hezbollah”, for its part, promises that it has not lost and that Israel has not been profitable, and therefore the main question: “What does the party want from the next stage? And what political and military role for it in the new Lebanon? ».

As for the side of Israel, Hanna is considered that “the destruction it is carrying out in the south is not proportional, as it used the utmost barbarism and destruction in the framework of (the punitive deterrence) to remove the problem from it for a period It tries to build a new reassuring reality for the border population, and therefore we also see large fortifications in the settlements. ” Hanna believes that «Resolution 1701 has become a hybrid, as it was found for the 2006 stage, which is, as every international decision serves a specific stage and circumstances, and today these circumstances have changed radically, and therefore this decision is no longer suitable for the stage, but it remains a legal starting point for the next stage.