The Deal with Lebanon is Disappointing, but Not Bad

by Hillel Fendel.

With varying degrees of praise for the deal, some observers had unrestrained praise for Netanyahu's strength in resisting international pressure for so long. 

"It's a tactical move, designed to serve our strategic and security interests." So summed up Cabinet Minister Orit Strook of the Religious Zionism party, referring to the ceasefire agreement with Lebanon/Hizbullah that went into effect this morning (Wednesday). This party's representative in the Security Cabinet, party leader Betzalel Smotrich, voted for the agreement, after it was reported that his proposals for extra-strict conditions be inserted.

Other observers were also measuredly optimistic. Though there are problems with the ceasefire, wrote Jonathan S. Tobin, editor-in-chief of Jewish News Syndicate, he added that this deal is "probably the best Israel can get under the circumstances… The Jewish state has not come away from the negotiations empty-handed but has achieved some real gains."

Minister Strook said that the American letter of assurance attached to the agreement guarantees that Israel can respond militarily to various expected Hizbullah infractions without being considered in violation of the ceasefire. 

She also noted that the agreement preserves our military achievements. It does not "return us to October `23, and not even to July `24 [when senior Hizbullah commander Fuad Shukr was killed by an Israeli airstrike] – but to the 'status quo' created this very month."

'Quiet for Quiet' is Out 

Strook also said: "No more are we following the 'quiet will be met with quiet' formula – because 'quiet' simply enables the terrorists to strengthen themselves. Our objective is not 'quiet,' but prevention of the rehabilitation of Hizbullah. And it is our sense that the IDF and all the security organs perceive the situation as we do, and are determined to enforce the agreement [and respond to violations] seriously and significantly." 

What she left unsaid, of course, was the tremendous American pressure brought to bear upon Israel by the outgoing Biden Administration. It has been widely reported that the Americans threatened not to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council, to apply sanctions, and to withdraw other support, if Israel did not agree to stop destroying Hizbullah terrorist infrastructures. 

Resisting the Pressures

The fact that this pressure was resisted for so long is attributed by many to one man: Prime Minister Netanyahu. Tobin, for instance, writes that the very significant setbacks dealt Hizbullah, Iran, and Hamas over the past year "were only made possible by the determination and the ability of one man to stand up to U.S. pressure to abandon the fight for Israel’s security many months ago. It’s difficult to imagine anyone other than Netanyahu could have stood his ground against Washington’s pleadings and threats, and have gone on to achieve an outcome that leaves Israel’s enemies far weaker than they were when the current conflict began almost 14 months ago."

Interestingly enough, even when the largely left-wing media in Israel, traditionally very anti-Netanyahu, offered up its automatic criticism of the prime minister for the deal, it seemed to trip over itself in seeking to find the problems. A negative article on the Walla site, for instance, harped at great length on the fact that Netanyahu's video speech explaining the deal to the Israeli public was edited and spliced together.

The Walla article, by one Nadav Menuhin, tried hard to keep track of whether it was more pro-ceasefire no matter what the cost, or more anti-Netanyahu. "More Israelis support the ceasefire than object to it," Menuhin wrote. "This is understandable, because the home-front is exhausted after more than a year of getting hit by rockets, deaths, and chaos… But whoever watched the news reports on the three main networks saw a different picture, in which the TV lined up totally with the deal's opponents, referring to Israel's 'surrender' and 'abandonment of the northern residents'…  Even Netanyahu, who practically apologized for the ceasefire, at least explained why it was necessary."

In short, the media is either against the agreement because it was brought by Netanyahu, or else serves the ceasefire back-handed compliments while denigrating its "author," Binyamin Netanyahu. 

Israel's Achievements

We thus return to Tobin, who elaborated on Israel's achievements in this agreement and in the military campaigns leading up to it: "[The past] two months of Israeli attacks on Hizbullah have significantly degraded [the terrorists'] capacity to inflict harm on the region. That’s a defeat for Iran, which had hoped that the seven-front war on Israel it had incited could go on indefinitely, weakening the country and its citizens’ resolve. Instead, they [Hizbullah] are the ones who have been diminished by military setbacks and vast losses inflicted on a group whose main purpose is to serve as a deterrent to attacks on Iran…"

And regarding Netanyahu, Tobin writes that his "leadership has been indispensable." He adds that what Netanyahu "has done in the year since [Oct. 7th] is truly remarkable. Only someone with his steely determination and savvy understanding of the tricky dynamics of the U.S.-Israel relationship could have navigated the long months of war so skillfully. No possible successor in his own Likud Party or among his opponents in the Knesset could have stuck to his goals - and do so much harm to Hamas and Hizbullah in the face of the [American] desire to force Jerusalem to accept the continued rule of Hamas in Gaza and avoid direct conflict with Iran’s Lebanese auxiliaries."

Outsmarting Biden

Similarly, analyst Avi Abelow of "Pulse of Israel" stated that Netanyahu is actually outsmarting Biden with this deal. With Biden having withheld much-needed weapons from Israel's war against Islamic terrorism, Netanyahu now calms the waters in anticipation of the second Trump Administration. 

"While I totally oppose this ceasefire," Abelow said, "I totally understand Netanyahu's calculations. [He] is trying to avoid Biden's dangerous threats… and is buying time to rest IDF forces and refresh critical armaments… His approach appears to be one of 'survival' until Jan. 20th when Trump is inaugurated again."

Time is Running Out for Israel to Attack Iran

by Kobi Eliraz, former Settlement Affairs advisor to various Israeli defense ministers, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Only just over six weeks remain for Israel to make a brave strategic decision.

[Translator's note: This past April, Iran attacked Israel with hundreds of missiles and drones, and Israel retaliated a week later. On October 1, Iran missile-attacked Israel once again, followed on Oct. 19 by a drone fired by Iran's proxies in Lebanon at Netanyahu's home in Caesaria. Israel's retaliation later that month included the destruction of an active nuclear weapons research facility – but security officials said then that this did not include Israel's response to the drone strike against Netanyahu's home. Though they indicated that further action could be expected, this has not yet happened.]

This week, explaining why he agreed to the ceasefire arrangement in Lebanon, Netanyahu said that one of the reasons was that it "enables us to focus on Iran - and I won't elaborate on that." 

The window of opportunity for Israel to mortally, or at least very painfully, strike Iran is beginning to close. The clock is ticking, and our option for a significant blow will disappear even faster the more the international situation changes and a new United States president takes office. 

Israel stands before a critical moment in which it must make a brave strategic decision, in spite of American and international reservations about - and pressures against - this course of action. 

Even with the ongoing messaging back and forth between Jerusalem and Washington, it appears that Israel currently has a rare opportunity to act in Iran, precisely now during the changing of the guard of the U.S. Administration. 

Iran, which well understands the greatness of the hour and the "complex" situation in which it finds itself, has refrained from responding with power to Israel's latest actions, even though it has often boasted to do so. This is the hour of Israel's test; it must realize that the time has come to change the rules of the game, Churchill-style. 

Great leaders are measured during times of crisis, when a single decision can change the course of history. Winston Churchill was forced to make fateful decisions during the course of World War II – and he sometimes did so against the advice of his own advisors and international allies. He understood that the future of the British nation, and the entire free world, was dependent on his leadership.

So, too, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu now faces a historic test of leadership. The present situation can tolerate neither hesitation nor procrastination, and this is the precise hour for him to make a daring decision. What Israel does now will affect the strategy of the Islamic-fundamentalist terrorist countries and organizations, and thus Israel's security, for many years going forward.

History does not remember kindly, if at all, the leaders who waited. It reserves an honored place only for those who took action, initiated, and led. 

Iran activates regional proxies such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, and others in Syria and Iraq. It represents a constant active threat to Israel and the stability of the entire Middle East. The Iranian proxies wait for instructions from Tehran, and Israel knows that if it precisely strikes the "head of the snake," those proxies will receive an equally precise message: "Israel is not playing just for its defense, but rather knows how to initiate and act whenever and wherever necessary."

It is likely that a unilateral Israeli strike of this nature will anger the U.S., but we must remember that there are those in the outgoing Biden Administration, and certainly in the incoming Trump Administration, who would actually support such a move. The appointees of Trump, in particular, who is known for his strong anti-Iran stance, could very well view this action as an opportunity to entrench his future policy vis-à-vis Iran. That is, an Israeli offensive will better position him regarding Iran, and against the Axis of Evil altogether. 

Strategically speaking, a successful Israeli strike will present Israel as a leading power and as an independent force in the regional arena. This will of course strengthen Israel's stature in future negotiations, and will further fortify its status as a military and diplomatic powerhouse. 

History teaches us that military initiatives, such as Operation Opera against Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, and Operation Outside the Box against a nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007, can effectively neutralize strategic threats. On the other hand, they also prove that refraining from such activity can be catastrophic. At the current time, a well-timed, precise, and successful strike against Iran will strengthen Israel in every possible arena, from north to south. It will even influence future moves by other countries in the region.

This is the moment when true leadership is measured. Israel must take advantage of the current Iranian sensitivity, and act with determination and wisdom. Any further delay reduces Israel's field of operations and strengthens our enemies. 

Mr. Prime Minister, you have successfully passed historic tests over the past year – and now you face perhaps the most acute one of all. Just as Churchill acted with unwavering steadfastness during the crisis moments of the Second World War, so too you must lead the State of Israel today. If you perform correctly, you will be remembered not only as a leader on the local stage, but as one who changed the balance of power in the Middle East and safeguarded Israel's security for generations to come. Iran well understands its own weaknesses at this time, and precisely for that reason, Israel must strike now while the iron is hot – and relevant.