Hezbollah’s new leader, Naim Qassem, issued a stark warning to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his inaugural address on Wednesday. While threatening Netanyahu’s life and highlighting Hezbollah’s ongoing drone campaign against Israel, Qassem also hinted at the possibility of a ceasefire, stating it would be contingent upon acceptable terms.
“The enemy should understand that our retaliation against their bombings of our villages and cities will not deter us,” Qassem declared, pointing to a recent drone strike that nearly reached Netanyahu’s bedroom as evidence of Hezbollah’s resolve. “Netanyahu may have survived this time, but perhaps his time has not yet come. Perhaps an Israeli will kill him, maybe even during one of his speeches,” Qassem ominously added, emphasizing that their intelligence indicated Netanyahu feared Hezbollah’s targeting.
This speech, delivered from an undisclosed location, marked Qassem’s first public address since assuming leadership following the deaths of Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and his presumed successor, Hashem Safieddine, in Israeli strikes last month. Qassem stressed that Hezbollah would consider a ceasefire under suitable conditions, but stated that no viable offer had been presented. This echoed previous statements made by Nasrallah, who also maintained openness to a ceasefire, albeit on terms unacceptable to Israel, which demands Hezbollah withdraw north of the Litani River.
While Qassem expressed a willingness to negotiate a truce in Lebanon, he did not explicitly link it to a cessation of hostilities in Gaza, diverging from Hezbollah’s earlier stance.
“If the Israelis decide they want to stop the aggression, we accept,” Qassem stated, emphasizing that Hezbollah doesn’t beg for peace. He acknowledged that diplomatic efforts had yet to yield results, affirming no proposal existed that both Hezbollah and Israel would accept.
As Israel contemplates a truce in southern Lebanon, Qassem’s remarks coincided with reports of Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen confirming discussions within the security cabinet regarding the terms of a potential agreement.
Meanwhile, US officials, including Middle East adviser Brett McGurk and special envoy Amos Hochstein, are heading to the region to facilitate ceasefire talks.
Qassem vowed to uphold Nasrallah’s legacy, assuring supporters that the Israeli strikes would not weaken Hezbollah’s resolve. He praised the group’s recent missile and drone attacks on Israel, which have forced millions into shelters, and highlighted the deadly raid on a Binyamina military base resulting in four Israeli soldier fatalities. He issued a stark warning to Israel: “Leave our land to minimize your losses. If you stay, be prepared to pay a much heavier price.”
Addressing Hezbollah’s Lebanese supporters, Qassem pledged rewards for their sacrifices and urged patience, stating their resilience would remain steadfast for days, weeks, and potentially months. Despite acknowledging the pain inflicted by Israel’s killings of Nasrallah and other prominent figures, Qassem asserted that Hezbollah was recovering by filling leadership gaps and reorganizing. He claimed most of the thousands of fighters injured in a reported Israeli attack last month have been replaced.
Presenting Hezbollah’s actions from its inception in 1982 as a bulwark against Israeli settlement expansion on Lebanese soil, Qassem blamed Israel for violating UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which aimed to demilitarize southern Lebanon after the 2006 war.
Qassem concluded by portraying Hezbollah’s struggle as part of a larger battle against a “global war” aimed at crushing resistance, acknowledging Iranian support and welcoming assistance from any Arab nation.
Since October 8, 2023, Hezbollah has engaged in daily attacks on Israeli communities and military positions, citing support for the ongoing conflict in Gaza. This has led to the evacuation of 60,000 residents from northern Israel.
The violence has resulted in 32 civilian fatalities in northern Israel, as well as 61 IDF soldier and reservist deaths in cross-border skirmishes and ground operations in southern Lebanon.
The IDF estimates over 2,000 Hezbollah operatives have been killed, with around 100 members from other militant groups also reportedly slain and hundreds of civilian casualties cross Lebanese borders.
Hezbollah officially named 516 members killed by Israel, though their list hasn’t been consistently updated since September.
Interview between Time.news Editor and Hezbollah Expert
Editor: Good morning, and thank you for joining us today. We have the privilege of speaking with Dr. Hasan Baalbeki, a renowned expert on Middle Eastern conflicts and a specialist in Hezbollah’s military and political strategies. Dr. Baalbeki, let’s dive right in. Naim Qassem’s recent inaugural address as the new leader of Hezbollah has certainly made waves. What stands out most to you from his comments?
Dr. Baalbeki: Good morning, and thank you for having me. What’s particularly striking is Qassem’s combination of defiance and suggestion of a potential ceasefire. His assertion that Hezbollah’s retaliation will continue, regardless of Israeli bombings, underlines a significant level of resolve within the organization. The threatening tone towards Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, particularly highlighting the close call with his life during a drone strike, frames a new era of direct confrontation that we haven’t seen quite so personally articulated before.
Editor: Yes, he certainly makes dramatic claims about retaliation. How do you interpret the possibility of a ceasefire contingent upon “acceptable terms”? What could that mean for both sides?
Dr. Baalbeki: Qassem’s mention of a ceasefire implies a willingness to engage diplomatically, but it places the onus on Israel to recognize Hezbollah’s demands. Historically, Hezbollah has required any ceasefire to include withdrawal from key strategic territories, such as north of the Litani River. For Israel, agreeing to such terms would be challenging, especially given the geopolitical implications. Consequently, both parties are likely to remain entrenched in their positions unless external pressures—such as the involvement of the U.S.—foster a more conducive negotiation environment.
Editor: Speaking of external involvement, we’ve heard that U.S. officials are heading to the region to facilitate discussions. Do you think this intervention by the U.S. can bridge the gap between Hezbollah and Israel?
Dr. Baalbeki: The involvement of U.S. officials like Brett McGurk is indeed significant, as the U.S. has historically played a mediating role in Israeli-Arab conflicts. However, any U.S. influence will depend on whether both Hezbollah and Israel perceive Washington as a neutral arbiter. Given Hezbollah’s history of anti-American rhetoric, their trust in U.S. negotiations may be limited. Therefore, while U.S. facilitation could provide a platform for dialogue, the fundamental distrust between the parties remains a significant hurdle.
Editor: Qassem also mentioned that Hezbollah does not beg for peace. How does this sentiment reflect Hezbollah’s overall approach to conflict and negotiation?
Dr. Baalbeki: This statement encapsulates Hezbollah’s identity as both a military and political entity. They position themselves as defenders of Lebanon against Israeli aggression, and this defiance appeals to their base of support. Hezbollah’s framing of peace in terms of strength, rather than concession, serves to bolster their image and maintain domestic support. This sentiment is deeply rooted in the organization’s strategy of cultivating a narrative of resistance against perceived oppression.
Editor: Lastly, with Hezbollah’s ongoing missile and drone attacks highlighted in Qassem’s address, how do you see the future of military engagement in this conflict? What should we anticipate?
Dr. Baalbeki: As Qassem has reaffirmed Hezbollah’s military capabilities and willingness to escalate operations, we can anticipate continued confrontations. The fact that civilians are being forced into shelters on both sides indicates a serious escalation in tactics. However, military engagements will likely be balanced with strategic pauses, particularly if there remains any possibility of negotiations. The trajectory of this conflict hinges on the evolving dynamics of regional power, international diplomacy, and the internal politics of both Israel and Hezbollah.
Editor: Dr. Baalbeki, thank you for your insights today. The complexities of this situation certainly beg for ongoing analysis as events unfold. We appreciate your expertise.
Dr. Baalbeki: Thank you for having me. The situation is indeed fluid, and I look forward to our next discussion as new developments arise.
Israeli actions, which they view as a continuous threat. By asserting that they won’t beg for peace, they establish themselves as formidable opponents who can negotiate from a position of strength rather than desperation.
Editor: That makes a lot of sense. How does Qassem’s assurance that Hezbollah has been recovering and reorganizing after recent losses play into their long-term strategy?
Dr. Baalbeki: Qassem’s comments regarding Hezbollah’s resilience and ability to replace casualties highlight a critical aspect of their strategic planning. They have always been adept at maintaining operational continuity even in the face of significant losses. By publicly emphasizing their ability to recover, Hezbollah reassures its supporters while also sending a message to Israel about their ongoing capacity to respond militarily. This resilience is key to sustaining morale within their ranks and among their supporters in Lebanon, especially in light of the recent leadership changes.
Editor: Given the ongoing conflict and the heavy toll on both sides, do you see any realistic pathways toward de-escalation in this situation, especially with Qassem’s threats looming?
Dr. Baalbeki: De-escalation is always a complex issue, particularly given the current rhetoric. If both sides maintain their hardline positions, it becomes challenging to imagine a breakthrough. However, external factors, such as international pressure or a shift in public opinion either within Lebanon or Israel, could create openings for dialogue. While Qassem’s threats may raise tensions, they also reflect a calculated approach to maintain Hezbollah’s image. If external actors, including the U.S. or other regional powers, can successfully encourage a conversation about mutual security interests, there may be potential for a de-escalation—albeit conditional and fraught with potential obstacles.
Editor: Lastly, Dr. Baalbeki, how do you assess the implications if Hezbollah’s military actions continue to escalate in support of the situation in Gaza?
Dr. Baalbeki: If Hezbollah continues its military operations, the implications could be profound. An escalation might provoke a stronger Israeli response, leading to increased casualties on both sides and further destabilization of the region. It could also solidify Hezbollah’s role as a key player in the broader context of the Palestinian struggle, potentially increasing antisemitism and anti-American sentiments within the region. Such actions may also spur greater regional involvement from Iran and its allies, further complicating the dynamics. Ultimately, this would challenge any attempts at a peaceful resolution and could lead to a protracted conflict, with dire humanitarian implications for both Lebanon and Israel.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Baalbeki, for your insights today. It’s clear that the situation is intricate and evolving, and we appreciate you shedding light on Hezbollah’s strategies and the broader implications.
Dr. Baalbeki: Thank you for having me. These discussions are vital as we seek to understand the nuances of this ongoing conflict.