Hezbollah and the Future Prospects – Abdul Sattar Al-Jabri 2

Related Articles

In the Realm of the Husseini Epic by Abdul Sattar Al-Jabri 8

31 minutes ago

God’s presence in our lives

1 week ago

I was sent only to perfect good morals02

2 weeks ago

**Episode Two – The 2006 War**

After the end of the Lebanese civil war, the outlines of Lebanon’s political future were shaped through the **Taif Agreement**, which was adopted by the various Lebanese parties. As a natural result of the war’s outcomes, Hezbollah acquired a central role in the internal political situation. It succeeded in balancing the political equation and came to hold significant influence within the Lebanese state at various levels. The national forces—of which Hezbollah was a strong supporter and an important partner—were able to impose their will within the Lebanese political reality.

As a result of the long conflict between Hezbollah and Israel on one side, and between the Palestinian resistance and Israel on the other, many Lebanese and Palestinians were taken prisoner by Israel. Hezbollah’s leadership sought to secure the release of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners through negotiations, but Israel repeatedly refused. This refusal prompted the party’s leadership to undertake a military operation inside the territory occupied by Israel in southern Lebanon in order to capture several soldiers and thereby compel Israel to release prisoners and detainees.

**Hezbollah Captures Two Soldiers**

In order to achieve its goal of freeing prisoners and detainees held in Israeli prisons, some Hezbollah fighters carried out a military operation inside the occupied territories. They crossed the barbed-wire barriers extending along the line separating Israeli‑occupied areas in southern Lebanon from the Shiite regions of southern Lebanon. Naturally, Hezbollah expected that Israel would respond fiercely to this operation.

It should be understood that Israel possesses significant military and intelligence capabilities. In addition to the advanced technologies placed at its disposal and the security and intelligence support it receives from Western countries, there are also factions within Lebanon that maintain close relations with Israel. Furthermore, Israel recruited spies within Lebanon who supplied it with information about Hezbollah. For this reason, Israel had a number of known targets it could act against when necessary, including Hezbollah’s headquarters, its institutions, weapons depots, and key figures within the organization.

The Israeli response consisted of several main axes:
1. Destroying Hezbollah’s infrastructure.
2. Bombing weapons and rocket storage sites.
3. Targeting Hezbollah headquarters and leadership figures.
4. Attempting to locate the place where the captured soldiers had been taken.
5. Invading southern Lebanon in order to displace the population that served as the resistance’s social base away from the contact line between the occupied territories and southern Lebanon.

Israel mobilized all of its military capabilities—air, land, and sea—to achieve two primary objectives. The first was to recover the two captured soldiers, since their capture was considered a serious blow to Israeli prestige. The second was to displace the Shiite population from southern Lebanon, as it constituted the social base of Hezbollah’s fighters and their presence near the border was seen as a major threat.

The war lasted **33 days**, during which the Shiite fighters of the resistance held their ground and wrote what their supporters describe as remarkable chapters in confronting Israeli forces, which were unable to advance significantly in southern Lebanon. Similar resistance was later claimed again during the conflict of 2024.

In terms of air power, Israeli forces carried out extensive bombardment, destroying many Shiite areas. Homes and buildings were demolished, farms were destroyed, and civilians were displaced from their lands. According to this account, the targeting focused mainly on Shiite regions, while nearby villages belonging to other sects sometimes remained unharmed even when they were geographically close. This was seen as evidence of Israel’s deep intelligence penetration and its ability to distinguish between different areas despite their proximity.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah fighters managed to halt the advance of Israeli forces, preventing them from achieving meaningful progress despite their tanks, aircraft, and armored vehicles. The resistance also transferred its weapons from known depots to alternative hidden locations that Israeli intelligence was unable to discover, despite its network of spies and constant satellite surveillance of southern Lebanon. This was portrayed as a significant intelligence success for Hezbollah despite its comparatively limited resources.

These developments contributed to growing doubts within Israel about the performance of its government. While official statements claimed that Hezbollah’s rocket capability had been destroyed, Hezbollah would often respond to such announcements by launching even larger volleys of rockets.

The resistance’s actions went further, including the downing of an Israeli helicopter and the targeting of armored vehicles with missiles. One of the most significant incidents was the strike on an Israeli naval vessel that had been bombarding the coastal route linking southern Lebanon to Beirut, forcing the ship to withdraw into deeper waters.

With this level of resistance and continued pressure, morale inside Israel was described as declining, and the sense of frustration spread among Israeli soldiers who saw themselves unable to secure a decisive victory against Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon. According to this narrative, Israel then sought U.S. intervention to push for a ceasefire. The war ended after 33 days, and Hezbollah presented the outcome as a victory, arguing that the terms of the ceasefire reflected the position of the militarily stronger side.

During this conflict, Hezbollah demonstrated what its supporters describe as significant training, military, technical, and intelligence capabilities. Its fighters were widely portrayed as displaying extraordinary courage and determination, achieving what they considered a major victory against an army that had long been described as “invincible.”

**UN Security Council Resolution 1701** emerged from the end of this war, and in this interpretation it reflected Hezbollah’s battlefield performance and its influence within the Lebanese political landscape, as well as the growing role of national forces in the decision‑making centers of the Lebanese state.