WANA (Nov 30) – Although the narrative battle began simultaneously with the military, security, and political dimensions of the Al-Aqsa Storm operation, certain significant events—such as the bombing of the Al-Ma’amdani Hospital, claims of tunnel discoveries and destruction, rumors about the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the attack on the Iranian Embassy in Syria, and credible promises—have elevated the importance of the narrative war above the military one.

 

One of the most pivotal events in this context is the ceasefire between Lebanon and the Israeli regime. Israel is attempting to manipulate perceptions through false news and political theatrics to present this ceasefire as a strategic victory for itself.

 

Here are some key points to consider:

1. Netanyahu’s Contradictory Stance
Three weeks ago, when Netanyahu dismissed his criminal Defense Minister Gallant, his reasoning was that Gallant “lacked the courage and determination to advance the war.” Netanyahu confidently claimed, “We can finish Hezbollah better.” Now, what has changed that Netanyahu and his circle have agreed to a ceasefire? The reality is that Israel conceded to the ceasefire, not Hezbollah. It is inaccurate to frame the narrative as why Hezbollah accepted the ceasefire.

 

Ceasefire in Lebanon Marks a Strategic Defeat for Israel, Says IRGC Commander Salami

WANA (Nov 28) – The Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami, has described the recent ceasefire on the Lebanese front as a humiliating and strategic failure for Israel. “Israel has failed to achieve even a fraction of its sinister goals in its war against Hezbollah,” Salami declared. He suggested […]

Read More...

 

2. Israel’s Claims of Destroying Hezbollah’s Capabilities
Israel often asserts that it has destroyed 80% of Hezbollah’s military power. If this were true, why did it not continue its aggression to eliminate the remaining 20%?

 

3. Hezbollah’s Operations Surpassed Israeli Expectations
The war in Lebanon did not proceed as Israel had hoped. Hezbollah’s missile operations exceeded Israel’s expectations. Moreover, the strategy of “alienating the public from the resistance” failed. Not only did Shiite support for Hezbollah remain intact, but solidarity among Lebanese people with Hezbollah also grew stronger.

 

4. Unintended Political Consolidation Around Hezbollah
Israel believed it could weaken Hezbollah and exacerbate its political challenges. Instead, factions that had disagreements with Hezbollah over issues such as the presidential election began moving closer to Hezbollah after Israel’s aggression. This unexpected development has even shocked Israeli strategists.

5. Significant Changes in the Ceasefire Agreement
The 13 articles of the ceasefire agreement differ significantly from Israel’s initial draft. Hezbollah’s persistence led to major changes, including the prevention of a “supervisory committee,” replacing the vague term “south” with “south of the Litani,” removing references to Resolution 1559, excluding Palestinian groups in Lebanon by name, and ensuring that Lebanese refugees return to their homes and lands rather than the ambiguous “places of origin” mentioned in the draft.

 

6. Return of Refugees
Lebanese refugees are returning to their homes in the south, while no such returns are happening in the occupied territories. Israeli settlers continue to feel insecure.

 

7. Resistance’s Social Power Beyond Lebanon
Israel aimed to demoralize the supporters of the resistance. A strong front requires a strong social and logistical backbone, and Hezbollah’s strength lies in the robust support of its Lebanese base. However, this social power extends beyond Lebanon. Just as Hamas’ social power extends beyond Gaza, Hezbollah draws on broader Islamic and regional support, particularly from Iran. This collective strength ensures that Israel cannot dominate the narrative of the war and the ceasefire.