1. Major General Wassef Erekat: Announcing the bombing of all parts of Lebanon every two hours is evidence of the fragility of the Israeli army’s field situation and the failure to achieve ground progress

Yasser Manna: The Israeli expansion of aggression against Lebanon reflects a new strategy based on negotiation within the context of military escalation

Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad: The situation may push Lebanon towards a new phase of war, especially in light of the failure of negotiations or the failure to reach a settlement

Dr. Aql Salah: What is happening in Lebanon is similar to the scenario of the war on Gaza, where Israel is following the strategy of “negotiating with fire and destruction.”

Akram Atallah: Experience has proven that Israel was not deterred by diplomatic and political action and international interventions, but by military force on the ground.

Nihad Abu Ghosh: The intense escalation across Lebanon is multi-dimensional and in line with the permanent Israeli principle of “negotiating under fire”

Israeli operations against Lebanon are escalating significantly, coinciding with the Israeli occupation’s announcement that it will expand its targeting to include bombing various parts of Lebanon every two hours, at a time when it seems that the Israeli military escalation is trying to resolve the negotiation files by force of arms, which reflects a new strategy adopted by Israel to negotiate with fire to bring about field transformations.

In separate interviews with “I”, writers, political analysts and specialists believe that Israel is trying to create an environment that opposes the Lebanese resistance by deepening civilian losses and destroying the infrastructure, and trying to pressure people to accept the Israeli conditions for reaching a settlement and achieving the goal of separating the Lebanese front from Gaza, while they confirm that Israel’s policy in its escalation against Lebanon is similar to what happened in Gaza.

Writers, analysts and specialists believe that Israel will continue its crimes without deterrence due to the continued American and Western support and the Arab silence on what is happening, while they point out that stopping these crimes requires the resistance to achieve achievements on the ground, and that there be a supportive Arab popular movement.

Difficulty of the Israeli army achieving the desired ground advance

Retired Major General Wassef Erekat, a strategic military and security expert, sees Israel’s announcement that it will bomb all of Lebanon every two hours as evidence of the fragility of its field situation and the difficulty of the Israeli army achieving the desired ground advance, despite the massive firepower used.

According to Erekat, this force revealed weaknesses in the performance of the Israeli army, especially in its direct field confrontation with the Lebanese resistance, and deepened the gap between the achievements it had previously made in its battles against conventional armies and its current stumbling in light of the resistance’s valiant resistance.

Erekat explains that this situation imposes additional pressures on Israel as time diminishes, as it tries to pressure the Lebanese home front by deepening divisions, creating an atmosphere of disagreements, and creating an environment that opposes the resistance by doubling the number of civilian casualties, targeting infrastructure, and destroying the basic necessities of life, just as happened and is happening in the Gaza Strip, based on Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s doctrine that calls for the use of escalating force to achieve goals.

He points out that this doctrine may be effective when confronting regular armies, where control is imposed based on field superiority, but it fails against resistance movements that wage asymmetric guerrilla warfare and rely on popular support and resistance culture, as is the case in Lebanon and Palestine.

In this context, Erekat sees three possible scenarios for the situation: The first is similar to what happened in 2006, when the Israeli leadership, led by Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, was forced to accept the 1701 Agreement after concluding that it was impossible to achieve tangible progress and to avoid greater losses in a long war of attrition.

The second scenario, in which Erekat expects the war to continue in its current form, with intensified bombing and expanded attacks on civilians, with the possibility of deepening the involvement of ground forces in southern Lebanon in uncalculated adventures, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did previously in the Gaza Strip. One indication of this trend, according to Erekat, is the dismissal of Defense Minister Yoav Galant and his replacement by Yisrael Katz, who made statements that reflect a limited understanding of the capabilities of the Lebanese resistance, which are superior to their Palestinian counterparts in Gaza.

As for the third scenario, Erekat points to Israel continuing to “negotiate with fire,” and this requires more use of destructive force and the withdrawal of some of its military divisions to reduce the extent of losses and inflict greater losses among Lebanese civilians, and through

Continuing to target the Lebanese infrastructure, which the Lebanese resistance realizes and seeks to lure the army into more direct engagement, realizing that the element pressuring Netanyahu is: the increasing volume of Israeli losses due to the strikes of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza and the Lebanese resistance in Lebanon. These losses, which have caused an imbalance in the balance of deterrence through the use of precision missiles, drones, and a bank of sensitive vital targets, and targeted Israel's demographic, geographic, and economic strategic depth, have begun to affect Israeli public opinion, as opinion polls have shown that 61% of Israelis now prefer to stop the war and negotiate.

The moral downfall of the Israeli army

Erekat confirms that the capabilities of the Israeli army are still available, but the morale of its soldiers collapses with every field failure.

Erekat believes that the moral downfall of the Israeli army, represented by destruction and killing, may lead to its military collapse, as happened with other armies throughout history.

Erekat points out that the current war comes in the context of escalating the confrontation with Iran and changing American leadership, which puts Israel in a more complex position and makes the results of the war more ambiguous.

Israel seeks to separate wars on Lebanon and Gaza

The writer and expert on Israeli affairs, Yasser Manna, points out that the Israeli expansion of aggression against Lebanon reflects a new strategy based on negotiation within the context of military escalation.

Manaa explains that this strategy revolves around targeting Lebanese civilian areas to pressure Hezbollah, as Israel sees that causing the greatest amount of damage to civilian infrastructure is a means of psychological and moral pressure on the party, with the aim of forcing it to engage in a political settlement that could mitigate the severity of the confrontation.

Manna believes that Israel is primarily seeking to separate the war in Lebanon from the war in the Gaza Strip, with the aim of achieving specific gains on the northern front, without being directly affected by the explosive situation in the south. This effort aims to achieve relative stability on the northern border, so that the Israeli army can more effectively direct its efforts towards escalation with the Palestinian resistance in Gaza, or at least reduce the simultaneous challenges on two fronts.

However, Manaa points out that Hezbollah, with its military experience and strong resistance structure, is confronting the Israeli strategy in an escalating manner, as the party has gradually expanded the scope of its operations against specific Israeli targets. This strategic expansion aims to exhaust the Israeli occupation forces and thwart any attempts at ground penetration deep inside Lebanon.

Manaa points out that the battles taking place in southern Lebanon have proven that Hezbollah's defenses are capable of thwarting Israeli plans, which has forced the Israeli military leadership to reconsider its tactics and resort to new methods, including the systematic destruction of border villages.

The confrontation has deep political dimensions.

Manaa points out that this confrontation is not just a traditional military war, but rather carries deep political dimensions through which Israel seeks to change the balance of power in the region.

Manaa explains that the field resistance led by Hezbollah currently constitutes the most important deterrent to Israel achieving its goals. Whenever the Israeli occupation forces attempt to advance or expand the scope of their operations, they face fierce resistance that contributes to establishing the balance of deterrence.

This resistance, according to Manaa, complicates Israeli calculations and makes achieving any sustainable field achievement difficult, in light of the ongoing pressures from the strategic operations managed by the Lebanese resistance.

Manaa points out that the scene in Lebanon is not just a military battle, but rather part of a larger battle aimed at imposing new rules for the regional game, as Israel is trying through field pressure to change the course of events, while Hezbollah’s steadfastness and ability to maneuver remain the main factor hindering this change.

Fundamental reasons, the most important of which is the failure of negotiations

Writer and political analyst Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad points out that the intense Israeli escalation against Lebanon, which reflects Israel’s announcement that it is bombing Lebanese territory at a rate of one attack every two hours, has fundamental reasons, the most important of which is the stumbling of negotiations to stop the war.

Awad believes that the failure of the ongoing ceasefire negotiations is one of the central factors in the escalation, as Hezbollah refuses to surrender or engage in a calm that affects Lebanon’s sovereignty, pointing to a strict Lebanese position that rejects any agreement that undermines national sovereignty.

This Lebanese insistence is met by Hezbollah, which, according to Awad, appears to be regaining its military health, as it escalates its attacks to reach sensitive areas inside Israel, and Israel in turn responds by trying to paralyze the party’s capabilities, which creates heavy Israeli losses in terms of lives and equipment, in addition to the major impact on the daily life of the economy, tourism and work in Israel.

According to Awad, Israel's escalation policy aims to weaken Hezbollah and push it back to just before the Litani River, as the goal of the intensive attacks is to paralyze the party and force it to accept a settlement according to Israeli conditions.

Awad points out that part of the Israeli strategy is to try to exhaust the Lebanese people, which may put pressure on Hezbollah's social incubator and push it to pressure it to end the fighting and enter into a settlement.

Awad likens this approach to what happened in Gaza during the Israeli war on it, where Israel sought to destroy the infrastructure and make daily life unbearable as a means of weakening the resistance.

Awad points out that the ongoing Israeli bombing is causing widespread destruction to the Lebanese infrastructure, harming the Lebanese economy and making daily life more difficult.

Awad asserts that this strategy aims to weaken both Hezbollah and the Lebanese state, and force everyone to negotiate on Israeli terms.

Awad warns that this situation could push Lebanon towards a new phase of war, especially in light of the failure of negotiations or the failure to reach a settlement.

Awad points to the possibility that Israel will advance slowly in southern Lebanon, where it has already destroyed 27 border villages, and may penetrate to distances of up to five or six kilometers and perhaps further, warning that Israel may continue its war to be long and reach deeper areas, recalling scenes of the Israeli war on Lebanon in 1982, and its arrival by land to Beirut.

Awad confirms that Hezbollah seeks to exhaust Israel and trap it in the Lebanese quagmire, while Israel is trying to weaken the party by penetrating the south.

Awad believes that both sides are relying on the idea of exhausting the other, which could significantly prolong the war.

Awad explains that Iran also has a major role, as it does not want to see Hezbollah weaken or give up its advanced position politically, militarily, security-wise and socially in Lebanon.

Awad stresses that Israel is adopting a "negotiation with fire" strategy, which is based on achieving the greatest possible gains on the ground before sitting at the negotiating table.

The field, as Awad describes it, is what determines the form of negotiations, whether between victors, losers, or those seeking a settlement.

Awad points out that Israel is exploiting this stage as an opportunity and is relying on Western support, especially from the colonial powers that give it a mandate to escalate military operations before entering into negotiations.

Israel seeks military pressure and then negotiation

Awad believes that Israel, which is an expert in this strategy, seeks to exert military pressure and then enter into negotiations to achieve gains that it could not achieve on the ground.

Dr. Awad discusses the idea of deterring Israel, pointing to three main aspects that could deter the occupation. The first is the “field,” where facts indicate Israel’s involvement in long and costly wars, whether in Gaza or Lebanon. These battles are not easy, but rather cause great losses in lives and equipment, and drain Israeli economic and military capabilities. This drain puts pressure on Israel and makes it reconsider its calculations.

The second side is European and American pressure, according to Awad, who points out that this war is very costly and may drag Israel into an uncertain future, which prompts influential countries to pressure Tel Aviv to curb its operations. However, he points out that the nature of this pressure differs in intensity, as American pressure is not like European pressure, and the effectiveness of this pressure depends on the level of international action.

According to Awad, the third party is the Arab world and the region, and Awad wonders about the extent to which Israel can take regional considerations into account in its war against the Palestinians and the Lebanese.

Awad points out that Israel may eventually have to take this dimension into account, especially in its relations with Arab countries, so as not to ruin all bridges and live in complete isolation, but he acknowledges that these considerations are not sufficient to completely deter Israel.

Awad confirms that the field war and the resistance on the various fronts remain the most influential factor in curbing Israel, especially with the losses it is suffering.

Awad assumes that this attrition may eventually push Tel Aviv to stop the war, but only after it has achieved part of its goals or realized that the cost of the war is greater than the expected gains.

Pressure tools to force Lebanon to accept Israel's conditions

Dr. Aql Salah, a specialist in ideological movements, researcher and political writer, believes that the intensification of Israeli escalation and the ongoing attacks on Lebanon constitute pressure tools aimed at embarrassing Hezbollah and forcing the Lebanese negotiator to accept Israeli conditions.

Salah points out that the Israeli strategy depends on trying to dismantle the links between the resistance fronts, specifically between Gaza and Hezbollah, to weaken the power of mutual influence between them.

Salah confirms that history has not recorded the existence of a real front supporting Palestine, whether from countries or resistance movements, throughout the years of the Israeli occupation, as has happened since the Battle of the Flood until today from the Lebanese front “Loyalty to Jerusalem” and the Iraqi and Yemeni fronts, and he says: “I am certain that this front will continue, and this is the will of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, the martyr Hassan Nasrallah.”

Salah believes that the repeated Israeli strikes on Lebanon every two hours and their expansion to various parts of Lebanon, as announced by the occupation, come in the context of a message to remind the Lebanese of creating double pressures internally in order to push them to accept the conditions dictated by Israel.

Salah points out that what is happening now in Lebanon is very similar to the scenario that took place in the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip, where Israel is following a strategy of "negotiating with fire and destruction."

Salah believes that this strategy aims to dismantle Lebanese cohesion and weaken the rally around the resistance by striking at morale and stirring up internal disputes, while trying to impose a fait accompli policy through American and Israeli dictates.

Salah explains that Israel, despite its escalation, is suffering from a real crisis due to Hezbollah's operations that have imposed a new deterrence equation, stressing that Israel is making every effort to end this file at any cost.

The next stage will be comprehensively escalating.

He stressed that Hezbollah will not remain idle in the face of the crimes of the Israeli occupation, expecting the responses to be intensified qualitatively and quantitatively, while expanding the scope of resistance operations to achieve a balance of deterrence.

Aql explains that the next stage will be a comprehensive escalation, with Hezbollah rejecting the Israeli conditions that it sees as humiliating, especially after the sacrifices made by the party.

On the Israeli level, Salah believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to prolong the war to achieve political gains and ensure his continued hold on power, while the circle of Israeli displacement is expanding as a result of Hezbollah’s operations.

Salah stresses the importance of having a strong, official Arab position that can pressure Israel to stop its crimes, but he expresses his doubts about this being achieved on the official level.

Meanwhile, Salah believes that the Arab popular movement, along with the continuation of resistance operations that are inflicting heavy losses on the occupation, may be decisive factors in stopping the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which is the same equation required in Gaza.

A state of stalemate in efforts to reach a settlement

Writer and political analyst Akram Atallah believes that the expansion of Israeli bombing operations on Lebanon reflects a state of intractability in efforts to reach a settlement so far, and that this is an attempt to force Lebanon to accept strict Israeli conditions, aiming to restore the image of Israeli deterrence in the region.

Atallah points out that the Israeli message from the current bombing is its ability to strike any target in Lebanon, in addition to repeated attempts to weaken Hezbollah's power by targeting weapons sites and the party's military infrastructure, which has been managing a war with Israel for more than thirteen months.

Atallah points out that the situation in Lebanon so far seems unwilling to accept a settlement on Israel’s terms, which impose demands that he describes as “surrender terms” for Lebanon and Hezbollah. These terms have pushed matters towards further escalation, as Israel continues negotiations using the method of excessive force, in what Atallah called “negotiating with fire.”

Atallah asserts that Hezbollah, which is not prepared to submit, will confront this by strengthening its position, which may lead to an increase in the pace of Israeli attacks that may extend to areas beyond the border villages, within the framework of what Israel describes as a second phase of fighting.

Atallah explains that Israel relies mainly on a strategy of military pressure, through negotiation under threat, noting that it acts as if "a gun is pointed to the head."

Israel, according to Atallah, employs all its power to intimidate its opponents or achieve what it considers necessary conditions for its security, even though these conditions represent complete surrender from Hezbollah's point of view.

Regarding the issue of deterrence, Atallah explains that experiences have proven that Israel has not been deterred by diplomatic, political, or international interventions, whether from the United States, European powers, or even Arab and Islamic countries. Rather, the only force that has so far succeeded in deterring Israel is the military force on the ground.

Atallah points out that Hezbollah has so far managed to inflict significant losses on the Israeli army in the border villages, which raises serious questions within Israel about its readiness to face the consequences of military responses if they go beyond the border villages, and to endure a more violent confrontation.

Bringing back the scenes of the brutal attacks in Gaza

Writer and political analyst Nihad Abu Ghosh points out that the intensive Israeli attacks on various parts of Lebanon, which targeted civilian and commercial facilities, in addition to targeting civilians and displaced persons, bring to mind scenes of the brutal attacks in the Gaza Strip.

He explains that this Israeli escalation aims to increase the human and societal suffering of the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples.

Abu Ghosh believes that Tel Aviv seeks to establish the idea that the Lebanese and Palestinian resistances are responsible for the suffering, while ignoring the crimes and brutality of its army.

Abu Ghosh points out that the goal of the Israeli escalation is multi-dimensional. On the one hand, there is a clear tendency towards revenge that reflects Israel’s desire to make Lebanon pay a heavy price. On the other hand, it seems that this escalation aims to create an internal division in Lebanese society, whether on the social or political level, in order to increase pressure on the resistance and the Lebanese state to make concessions in the negotiations to stop the fighting.

Abu Ghosh explains that the Israeli escalation is in line with its permanent principle of “negotiating under fire,” as Israel usually resorts to negotiations only when it feels it is in a position of strength, which it seeks to achieve through military force.

He believes that the extensive bombing to include all parts of Lebanon, and the transition from targeting the suburb to bombing other areas, comes in the context of the ground operation that began with clearing the first line of Lebanese villages adjacent to the border with occupied Palestine.

Abu Ghosh refers to Israel's attempts to amend the essence of UN Resolution 1701, which would give it the freedom to violate Lebanese airspace, and give the Israeli army the right to move and implement its military decisions without the need for international authorization or referring to the relevant authorities, if it claims that violations have occurred.

Clear contradictions in Israeli statements

Abu Ghosh believes that there are clear contradictions in the Israeli statements, which may reflect differences between the political and military levels. On the one hand, some military leaders claim that the army has accomplished the required tasks, such as dismantling Hezbollah’s infrastructure in the border areas, while others, both regular and reserve officers, believe that the time has come to reach a political settlement. These people believe that not quickly investing military achievements in political gains will give Hezbollah a chance to restore its capabilities.

Abu Ghosh points out that, on the other hand, there are hardline political statements, such as those of the new Israeli Minister of War, Israel Katz, who confirms that the main goal is to completely eliminate Hezbollah, which reflects a hardline political line that seeks to achieve long-term goals.

Abu Ghosh comments on the Israeli army’s shift from targeting the first line of villages to the second villages deep inside Lebanon, and believes that the military escalation reflects a firm belief that military force alone is not enough to achieve political goals.

Abu Ghosh stresses the importance of international political pressures, but the United States plays a major role in supporting Israel, whether through joint initiatives or blatant bias that affects Lebanese sovereignty and reflects an American position that is in line with Israeli positions.

Abu Ghosh talks about the role of the United States in strengthening the Israeli war machine, pointing out that Washington adopts a position that guarantees Israel impunity from international punishment.

Abu Ghosh explains that American military and financial support covers all of Israel's losses and protects it from any accountability in international forums.

Abu Ghosh believes that this American and Western collusion, as well as the silence of some Arab regimes, contributes to the continuation of Israeli crimes, whether in Gaza or Lebanon, without any real international deterrent.

Abu Ghosh stresses that the only factor that might push Israel to review its aggressive policies is for the Israeli citizen to feel that his personal security and well-being are in real danger.

Abu Ghosh points out that the human and material losses among the Israelis, and the depletion of the army due to the long wars, could have a tangible impact on the possibility of stopping the war.

This is explained by the fact that the Israeli army, despite its strength, has been exhausted by a long war of attrition that required the call-up of reserve soldiers and officers several times, and inflicted heavy losses in lives and equipment, which requires the restructuring and restoration of the forces, which is what officers in the Israeli army are demanding.

Abu Ghosh points out that Israel is waging an open war against irregular forces and rebellious peoples, a war that cannot be decided by conventional methods.

Abu Ghosh stresses that these battles are not subject to the rules of classical warfare, which makes it impossible for Israel to achieve a quick and decisive victory.

Abu Ghosh points out that the occupation continues its aggression because it realizes that it will remain beyond punishment, thanks to unlimited American support, and because Israel assumes that it has been above accountability since its inception, relying on this ongoing international cover.