Were the Palestinians frustrated by Nasrallah's speech?

Ramallah - Palestinian opinions were divided regarding the speech of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah yesterday, Friday, between supporters who saw in it a message of open support for the resistance, and others who described it as “constructive and out of time,” while analysts described it as a realistic speech to the extent possible for the party and in light of Lebanon’s internal circumstances and American threats to the region.

Despite the internet and electricity outages in the Gaza Strip, there was great interest in following the speech of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah on local radio stations arriving from the West Bank, according to what was reported by political science professor Mustafa Ibrahim, who and his family were displaced from Gaza City to Rafah in the south due to the bombing.

Ibrahim spoke to Al Jazeera Net about the amount of frustration felt by the Palestinians around him after the speech. He added, "I noticed the amount of anger here compared to the amount of expectations," and his statement reflects what most of the comments of the Palestinians were like, who felt let down and frustrated by Nasrallah's speech, after great expectations that reached the point of announcing a clear decision by the party to enter the war.

But on the other hand, Ibrahim added, “On the political level, I find it an acceptable speech at this stage of the war, especially in light of Nasrallah’s assertion that options are open in the future.” He added, "Hezbollah's occupation on the northern front is an important part of this war, which may extend for a long time. This has constituted a burden on Israel, which is trying to isolate Gaza from its surroundings and focus its aggression on it."

What was expected?

A quick review of a number of posts on social media, many Palestinians expected an “all-out war” with long-term bombardment against Israeli targets from Lebanon, while questions were raised after the speech about why Nasrallah refrained from taking this step.

Political analyst Nihad Abu Ghosh says that most Palestinians expected something identical to what happened on October 7, and that the speech would coincide with the bombing of Israeli targets, but “apart from wishful thinking, the speech was realistic and political, and Hezbollah cannot do more than that at the current stage.” 

According to Abu Ghosh, “waiting for a miracle to stop the killing in the Gaza Strip has caused the Palestinians to lose the ability to read the scene politically and focus on important points mentioned in the statement, such as emphasizing support for the Palestinian resistance as an integral part of the axis of resistance, and leaving the options open, in a clear threatening message to Israel.”

Abu Ghosh considered that the high level of expectations was due to the Palestinians feeling let down by the position of the Palestinian Authority, wondering why they did not “hold this responsibility to the Palestinian leadership, which has not provided anything so far.”

Political science professor Ayman Youssef agrees with what analyst Abu Ghosh said, saying that the scale of expectations were very high, in light of the disappointment of the Palestinian leadership, whose only speech was limited to emphasizing the role of popular resistance, despite the continuous bombing and the continued occurrence of massacres in the Gaza Strip.

Youssef considered that the most important reason for the high ceiling of expectations is the Palestinians’ link between their resistance and the so-called “axis of resistance,” which Nasrallah confirmed in his speech by talking about training and supporting Palestinian resistance factions, considering this an important part of the party’s role, amid long-term expectations. This war.

What prevents entry into war?

Academic Youssef considered that the scenarios built by the Palestinians expected Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters to move from Lebanon, but he considered them “emotional expectations” that are not subject to the logic of politics. He said, "The decision is not in Nasrallah's hands. Lebanon cannot tolerate confrontation and destruction at the present time, and Hezbollah knows very well that the internal conditions are not prepared for war, which is what made him devote most of the speech to the internal popular base in Lebanon."

As for the Director General of the Palestinian Center for Policy Research and Strategic Studies (Masarat), Hani Al-Masry, he believed that any war that could break out now would have the price of changing the entire face of the region, which is something that neither Lebanon nor other countries can currently bear.

In an interview with Al Jazeera Net, Al-Masry considered that what was stated in Nasrallah’s speech “could establish a new phase in the region, as the speech focused on movement on the northern front, which could develop according to the course of the battles, or calm down if the aggression stopped,” and he continued, saying, “Nasrallah did not announce his entry into the war, but he did not close the door either.”

Analysts - including Al-Masry - agree that Hezbollah is not currently ready to enter a comprehensive war, but on the other hand, they do not rule out any change in the next stage, according to the changes imposed by the aggression on the Gaza Strip and the battles there and on the Lebanese border front.

Al-Masry also believes that the party has a major role at this stage without entering the war, and that the speech carried clear and direct messages to Israel, which it will take into consideration in any decision to expand the war.

He added, "Hezbollah constitutes a rear protection for the resistance, and with it the entire resistance axis. We can be certain that had it not been for that, we would have witnessed a new Nakba and the direct deportation of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip." 

But what Nasrallah is accused of, according to Al-Masry, “is not clarifying this role directly, and leaving it within the implicit meaning of the speech.”