|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
As tensions escalate between Israel and Hezbollah, a proposed ceasefire between the two entities has sparked widespread condemnation among Israeli politicians and residents of northern Israel.
The ceasefire deal, which was brokered by the United States and France, is set to commence on Thursday around midday.
However, critics argue that this ceasefire could lead to devastating consequences, referencing the recent atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023, as a potential precursor to future threats.
In an interview with Israeli media on Thursday morning, prominent figures in northern Israel, particularly Metula Regional Council chairman David Azulai and Upper Galilee Regional Council chairman Amir Sofer, voiced their staunch opposition to the deal.
They, along with several Israeli ministers and Members of the Knesset, expressed concerns that the ceasefire would provide Hezbollah with the time and space it needs to regroup, reorganize, and plan further attacks on Israel’s northern regions.
“A Threat to Northern Israel”
David Azulai, a key leader in the northern town of Metula, warned that agreeing to a ceasefire without eliminating Hezbollah as a threat would effectively guarantee another crisis similar to Hamas’ deadly assault on Israel’s southern borders.
Azulai stated, “This ceasefire would ensure ‘the next October 7,’ for which the government would be responsible.”
He emphasized that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must take immediate action to neutralize Hezbollah’s capabilities, thereby protecting northern residents who have already endured nearly a year of escalating violence.
Azulai further criticized the timing of the ceasefire proposal, arguing that Hezbollah’s recent activities underscore the seriousness of the threat they pose.
He stated, “This government must remove the threat. Such a situation must not happen, and the government has all the support it needs to fight Hezbollah and provide a safe environment for northern Israel’s residents.”
Azulai likened the situation in northern Israel to the tragic events that took place on October 7, when Hamas launched a surprise attack on southern Israel, leading to widespread devastation.
“They want to do exactly what Hamas did in the south on October 7,” Azulai said, referring to Hezbollah’s intentions. He also stressed that agreeing to a ceasefire with the Lebanese terrorist organization without a decisive military victory would only prolong the suffering of the region’s residents.
“This is a Time for War”
Upper Galilee Regional Council chairman Amir Sofer echoed Azulai’s sentiments, strongly opposing the ceasefire agreement.
He stated, “This is a time for war! There is a time for everything under the heavens, and we must not be misled by international pressure.”
Sofer argued that accepting a ceasefire under the current conditions would only delay the return of northern residents to their homes and leave those who have not been evacuated at risk of further attacks.
Sofer added that while there may eventually be a time for negotiations, now is not that time.
“We must not be misled. The ceasefire would achieve only two things: delaying the return of northern residents and abandoning those who have not been evacuated.” He called on the Israeli government to reject the ceasefire proposal and instead prioritize the security of northern residents.
Political Leaders Respond
The ceasefire proposal has also triggered strong reactions from Israeli politicians, who are divided on how to proceed. Opposition leader Yair Lapid, chairman of the Yesh Atid party, expressed cautious support for a ceasefire but argued that it should be significantly shorter. In a statement on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Lapid welcomed the US-French proposal but insisted that Israel should limit the ceasefire to seven days. “The State of Israel should announce this morning that it accepts the Biden-Macron proposal for a ceasefire, but only for seven days, to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its command and control systems,” Lapid wrote.
Lapid emphasized that any ceasefire agreement should be contingent upon Hezbollah being driven away from Israel’s northern border. “Israel should not accept any proposal that does not see Hezbollah driven away,” he added.
Yair Golan, chairman of the Democrats and former Deputy Chief of Staff, also advocated for a shorter ceasefire, proposing a three-day pause in fighting to discuss critical issues related to the future security of Israel’s northern border. “It is not right to agree to a three-week ceasefire. It is right to agree to a three-day ceasefire, during which progress should be made on three key parameters: territory, the Lebanese government, and international guarantees,” Golan explained.
Golan further called for Hezbollah to be pushed out of the area south of the Litani River, and for the Lebanese government to take responsibility for reducing Hezbollah’s influence and preventing the entry of long-range missiles and drones into southern Lebanon. He also stressed the need for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to be strengthened and its mandate expanded to ensure freedom of movement in all southern villages.
Calls for Caution
While some politicians have shown cautious support for the ceasefire, others have taken a more hardline stance. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir announced that he would convene his far-right Otzma Yehudit party for an urgent meeting to discuss the developments.
Ben-Gvir has previously threatened to withdraw his support for Netanyahu’s government if concessions are made that he opposes.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich of the Religious Zionist Party similarly condemned the ceasefire proposal, writing on X that the conflict in northern Israel should end with “one scenario – crushing Hezbollah and removing its ability to harm the residents of the north.”
He argued that Israel “cannot give the enemy time to recuperate and reorganize,” reiterating that the only solution to ensuring the safety of northern residents is a decisive military victory over Hezbollah.
Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli (Likud) echoed these concerns, stating that Israel “cannot stop now” and emphasizing the need for a ground operation to create a buffer zone and prevent future threats from Hezbollah.
He warned that failing to act decisively now could lead to the evacuation of more towns in northern Israel in future conflicts.
Opposition MK Gideon Sa’ar, leader of the United Right party, criticized the government for what he described as a “moderation” of air force attacks on Hezbollah targets in recent days.
Sa’ar argued that consistent military pressure is essential to dismantling Hezbollah’s capabilities and ensuring the safety of Israel’s northern regions.
Fear of Hezbollah’s Return
The underlying fear shared by both Israeli politicians and northern residents is that Hezbollah could use the ceasefire period to regroup and prepare for future attacks, much like Hamas did in Gaza.
Former Shin Bet senior official Yossi Amrosi stressed that peace negotiations with Hezbollah should occur “under gunfire.” He warned that a three-week pause in fighting is too long and would allow Hezbollah to reorganize and strengthen its position.
Amrosi emphasized that if Israel agrees to a ceasefire, it must be as short as possible, with the main objective of any military operation being the safe return of northern residents to their homes.
Conclusion
As the clock ticks toward the ceasefire deadline, Israel’s political landscape remains deeply divided over the best course of action.
While some advocate for a brief pause in hostilities to explore diplomatic solutions, others, including key figures in Israel’s northern regions, fear that a ceasefire without a decisive military victory will leave the country vulnerable to future attacks.
With tensions running high and the threat of Hezbollah looming large, the Israeli government faces a critical decision: whether to agree to the ceasefire proposal or continue its offensive to secure the safety of its northern borders.
This article was created using automation technology and was thoroughly edited and fact-checked by one of our editorial staff members