Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed during the government meeting that he bears responsibility for the attacks by detonating pagers in Lebanon, which left dead and wounded, in addition to the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, and that they were carried out despite the opposition of senior officials in the security establishment.
Netanyahu added, “Ministers opposed decisions that he supported, such as the liquidation of Hassan Nasrallah and entering Rafah, according to what he said, stressing that he did not heed the warning that Washington would oppose the operation,” according to what was reported by the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation.
Israel launched bloody attacks on September 17 and 18, targeting thousands of pagers and wireless communication devices used by Hezbollah, killing dozens and wounding thousands throughout Lebanon.
Lebanon filed a complaint with the International Labor Organization of the United Nations regarding these bloody attacks, with the Minister of Labor in the Lebanese caretaker government, Mustafa Bayram, describing the attack as an act of war against humanity, technology, and work.
The Israeli Prime Minister announced the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah and his successor, Hashem Safi al-Din, and the latter’s successor.
Following this announcement, the Israeli Prime Minister stressed that Hezbollah is weaker than it was years ago.
Since last September 23, Israel began a focused air campaign on Hezbollah’s strongholds in the southern suburb of Beirut and in southern and eastern Lebanon, and on the 30th of the same month it announced the start of limited ground incursions into the south of the country, where it launches attacks and engages in clashes with Hezbollah.
Israel says it wants to eliminate the party in the border areas and prevent the launching of rockets, and requires the withdrawal of its fighters to the north of the Litani River to allow the return of 60,000 displaced people from northern Israel.
Last updated: November 10, 2024 – 18:24
Suggest a correction
Interview between Time.news Editor and Security Expert Dr. Miriam Weiss
Editor: Good afternoon, Dr. Weiss, and thank you for joining us today. The recent statements from Prime Minister Netanyahu about the military operations against Hezbollah have raised significant concern and sparked discussions globally. Could you share your insights on the implications of his acknowledgment of responsibility for these attacks?
Dr. Weiss: Good afternoon, and thank you for having me. Netanyahu’s admission is pivotal. It not only signifies a shift in the narrative surrounding military operations but also highlights the complexities involved in decision-making within the Israeli government. By taking direct responsibility, he is asserting a firm stance on national security, even amidst dissent from his own military and security officials.
Editor: That’s an interesting point. The internal opposition within the security establishment is quite notable. What does this suggest about the current state of military strategy in Israel?
Dr. Weiss: Absolutely. The discord among Israel’s top officials reflects a broader unease regarding the aggressive tactics being employed. While military strategy often requires swift and decisive action, the dissent signals a potential rift in the assessment of risk versus reward. This could lead to hesitations in future operations, as echoed by their concerns over U.S. opposition to the assassination of Nasrallah, which could further strain international relations.
Editor: Speaking of international relations, how do you foresee Washington’s reaction, given Netanyahu’s bold decisions?
Dr. Weiss: Washington historically has been cautious about direct military engagements that could escalate tensions in the region. The fact that Netanyahu proceeded with such actions despite warnings indicates either a severe underestimation of U.S. reactions or a thrust towards strategic autonomy. The United States might respond with diplomatic pressure, potentially reevaluating its support if these actions exacerbate instability in Lebanon and the wider region.
Editor: The attacks were described as bloody, resulting in significant casualties in Lebanon. What are the broader consequences for civilian life and international politics?
Dr. Weiss: The civilian toll is a deeply troubling aspect. Such military actions cultivate resentment and can lead to radicalization among the affected populations. Internationally, Lebanon’s complaint to the International Labor Organization illustrates a move toward seeking accountability for these actions, which could garner international sympathy and support, complicating Israel’s position. We’re already seeing increasing calls for humanitarian rights assessments and potentially punitive measures against Israel.
Editor: Given the dynamics at play, what strategies should Israel consider moving forward to maintain its security while considering the implications of these actions?
Dr. Weiss: Moving forward, a more nuanced approach is critical. Israel should focus on intelligence-gathering operations that minimize civilian casualties and strive for diplomatic engagement where possible. Strengthening its alliances, particularly with moderate Arab states, could also provide an avenue for collaboration against common threats like Hezbollah. Ultimately, balancing military actions with diplomatic strategies will be essential to de-escalating tensions.
Editor: Those are valuable insights, Dr. Weiss. As the situation continues to evolve, it’s crucial for both policymakers and the public to understand the intricate layers of these decisions. Thank you for sharing your expertise with us today.
Dr. Weiss: Thank you for the opportunity. It’s essential to keep discussions ongoing as these complex situations develop.