Bint Jbeil: Town of Heroic Resistance

By Mohammad Jaradat

Weaker than a spider’s web. This is a slogan used by the late martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, from here in Bint Jbeil that represents the crucible of southern Lebanese geography intertwined with a history of resistance from the last century against the French occupation, and the crown jewel of northern Palestine in the face of the British occupation. Here, some of Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam’s men received their training and ammunition for the battlefield.

The Litani River, with its proud craned neck, peering from its geographical depression into the nearby hills, eastward towards Ainata and southward opposite Maroun al-Ras and Ain Ebel peers in fervor. Here, the Israeli occupation army finally declared its encirclement after 50 days of war and nearly a month of intermittent ground incursions by their two fully equipped divisions.

The 98th Division, with over 15,000 soldiers, advanced from the east, and the 162nd Division, with a similar strength, advanced from the west. The spokesperson of this “army” boasted that the sports stadium had been captured. It was here that the complex of “weaker than a spider’s web” took root in the Israeli psyche, beginning in 2000 with the victory speech by Nasrallah, then general secretary of Hezbollah, delivered in this very stadium. This complex solidified in 2006, becoming deeply ingrained in the Israeli psychological and political landscape and surfacing.

Today Bint Jbeil, a southern town with a population of 25,000 and an area exceeding 10 square kilometers, is besieged. The encirclement is now complete, and the Israeli army intends to storm it, as they did in 2006 for four weeks. Then, Brigadier General Gal Hirsch repeatedly announced its capture in three consecutive false claims. Israeli soldiers attempted a takeover 2024, but Bint Jbeil remained defiant against the invaders, even under the cover of the world’s most powerful air force and accompanied by the most advanced and sophisticated tanks.

Bint Jbeil sits peacefully in its low-lying geographical area, just 3 kilometers from the northern Palestinian border. Only Mount Maroun al-Ras separates it from this border, being fraught with tension and pride. This time the Israeli occupation army traversed its roads, advancing towards the outskirts of Bint Jbeil. Channel 14 of the Israeli entity, albeit through circuitous means, circumvented the military censor’s scissors to reveal the hell of war in Bint Jbeil, where the tank of the commander of Battalion 52 had just been blown up by an anti-tank missile.

The Israeli occupation army is pushing towards Bint Jbeil, fully aware of the symbolic and strategic importance of this town. It is the geographical neck that separates the eastern and western branches of the Litani River. Israel cannot claim to have complete control over the southern Litani without Bint Jbeil. However, its past experiences with the town have been bitter. While it may have studied its reality and learned from those experiences, its people and their resistance have surpassed even the lessons learned and the harshness of the confrontation.

The alleys and lanes of Bint Jbeil bear witness to the footsteps of dozens of resistance fighters and commanders who have fallen within its walls in previous battles. Dozens of Israeli soldiers and commanders have also fallen there. Today, in the Battle of Asif al-Ma’kul (Operation Protective Edge), Bint Jbeil opens its arms not to welcome invaders, but to shelter some of them as prisoners, after the promise made by today’s Secretary-General of the Resistance, Sheikh Naim Qassem. He, a man of action rather than oratory, and he would not have made such a vow unless the men of God, under his guidance, had prepared themselves for the present fight. There are resistance prisoners whom the November 2024 agreement left unfulfilled, and the resistance does not abandon its prisoners in prisons.

A picture of victory.

Through this, Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to market his empty slogans here, even at the cost of dozens of the lives of his soldiers. What he failed to achieve in his aggression against Iran, he now aims to accomplish here in Lebanon, even through direct negotiations with a government that represents only a small minority of subservient individuals. He arrogantly insists on negotiations under fire, hence his insistence that his Chief of Staff, Eyal Zamir, rush to Bint Jbeil, just as Ehud Olmert did previously when he insisted on his Chief of Staff, Dan Halutz, and persisted until some officers, according to Olmert’s later admissions, disobeyed orders and withdrew without permission from some of the areas they had seized in Bint Jbeil, leaving in a worse state than when they had entered.

The concentrated targeting of Bint Jbeil, amidst the rush to resolve the battle, even if only by attempting to stage a photo opportunity in some of its neighborhoods, points to several important aspects, most notably:

First: The quagmire of the Israeli army in southern Lebanon is becoming increasingly entrenched, especially as Israeli political ambitions have begun to outweigh its military achievements on the ground. This is due to the composure of the resistance leadership, its effective management, and its mobile control over key areas in southern Lebanon. It is also due to the pressure of Iranian steadfastness and the interconnectedness of the various fronts, which has driven Netanyahu to seek a preemptive escape by jumping into direct negotiations with the Lebanese government lead by Nawaf Salam in Washington.

Second: This serves to cover up the Israeli-American failure on the Iranian front. This failure, on the one hand, is what prompted the Israeli army to commit Wednesday’s massacres against hundreds of civilians. On the other hand, it indicates the frenzied behavior that gripped Netanyahu after the US agreed to the Iranian condition of halting the aggression against Lebanon, just as it halted the aggression against Iran—a condition that remains a thorn in Israel’s side.

Third: Exploiting the official Lebanese rush towards Israel through direct negotiations—negotiations devoid of any real possibility of agreement. The Lebanese government lacks the necessary realities and is negotiating to secure a ceasefire agreement, separate from any Iranian gains, in exchange for Israel’s insistence on disarming Hezbollah. Hezbollah’s weapons are used to bombard Israeli settlements in northern Palestine day and night, and to destroy invading tanks and vehicles with alarming regularity.

Fourth: Attempting to resolve the stalemate on all fronts south of the Litani River through a decisive battle in Bint Jbeil. This battle is seen as capable of dismantling the entire stalemate. Herein lies the Israeli spirit of adventurism, which might sometimes suit the resistance forces. Israel would not lose much if its gamble failed. However, in the approach of conventional armies, such reckless actions break their backs and cause them to lose their overall balance. This is precisely the situation the occupation army might find itself in if its adventurism backfires on it at the gates of Bint Jbeil or within its shadowy environs.

It is no exaggeration to say that the state of enticement that the Israeli occupation army is pursuing in Bint Jbeil may decide the fate of the aggression against Lebanon as a whole, especially with the insistence of Netanyahu and his war minister Israel Katz and their exertions on the army commanders in the field, at which point continuing to run away since October 7, 2023 will not be of any use.

Mohammad Jaradat is a Palestinian researcher who contributed this article to Al Mayadeen and this article is presented in translation form and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

The Epic Fury Operation launched by the US against Iran in February 2026, will go down in modern history as the first open military conflict, where a superpower like the United States, has willingly and openly played the role of a war-proxy, on behalf of its smaller ally, Israel.

The difference of attitude between the two close allies, US and Israel, in relation to what they perceived as Iran’s threat, imminent or potential, was a key factor behind the gradual crumbling of the American-Israeli coordinated military and intelligence efforts, to bring down the regime in Tehran.


Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing government, kept saying Iran posed an imminent existential threat to Israel, and therefore it must be brought down by force. While the US position was constrained by its previous international commitments on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as stipulated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers, during the administration of President Obama.


Since that moment Netanyahu kept vigorously urging, more likely lecturing the US and the West, on the dangers of the JCOPA agreement. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2017, things took an important and completely different turn. In the following year, he took the United States out of that internationally-backed deal as he had promised to do during his election campaign. He also kept his promises of moving the US Embassy to Occupied Jerusalem and recognize the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.


These symbolic and important gestures, whetted Netanyahu’s appetite for more American concessions to Israeli demands.


Netanyahu’s golden opportunity came when Trump was re-elected to his second term in 2023, the same year when Hamas launched its massive assault on the Israeli settlements in the so-called “Gaza enevlope”. Other militias connected and supported by Iran, including the Houthis in north Yemen, Hezbollah in south Lebanon, Syria under the previous regime and Shia factions in Iraq coordinated their efforts to stand by Hamas during that long and unprecedented confrontation with Israel.

For its part, Iran did not shy from making it clear that it helped create this “chain” of resistance factions to encircle Israel from three directions.

The second turning magical point in the US position on the issue of direct military intervention against Iran came about when Israel succeeded in serving Hezbollah, the severest military blow ever, in the pagers’ operation and the subsequent assassination of Hezbollah’s top leaders, including its charismatic Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Sept 27, 2024.


Trump was very impressed with all of that Israeli action and Netanyahu gave himself the full credit for this unexpected success.


Accordingly, Netanyahu’s plan to Trump was simple. Based on the Israeli accumulated intelligence and expertise on the Iranian internal scene and emulating its operation against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, accompanied by massive American air strikes would provide both allies with the best chance to finish the Ayatollahs in Tehran once and for all!


But as events unfolded, all of Netanyahu’s plans, personally and strongly endorsed by Trump and his military aides, suddenly started crumbling, one after the other. His relations with Trump slipped into stages of deterioration by the day and week as the closure of the Hormuz Strait by Iran, started hurting the world economy led by the US.


Here new red lights went on and the phone calls between the two men became more intense and vulgar. Then Trump decided to pass on the torch to his deputy, JD Vance, who seemed comfortable to tell Netanyahu what Trump avoided to do!


Conclusion: It is tricky to switch roles of allies in wars. A smaller entity can always stay safe as long as its leaders know the limits of their power and leverage. When people like Netanyahu think they have more power and clout than they actually have, versus their stronger ally, then irritation starts to brew, especially in the case of Trump who likes to show he is always in the driving seat. It also means that the leadership on the side of stronger partner has some problems of its own!


Whether it is a wrangle, rift, collision, divorce or worse between Trump and Netanyahu, we will not know for certain, until the negotiators in Switzerland close their files and head back home!

Continue reading
Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

By Ali Bakir

On June 15, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced via the US social media platform X that a peace deal between the US and Iran had been reached, following over two months of mediation by his country. Sharif expressed gratitude to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye for their significant contributions, stating that the official signing ceremony would take place on June 19 in Switzerland. Following this announcement, a memorandum of understanding was signed electronically by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the US side, and by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on the Iranian side.

The reported agreement is characterized as a framework peace deal aimed at ending the 2026 Israel/US-Iran war and transitioning the current ceasefire into a broader diplomatic process. Although the text of the agreement has not yet been published, key reported elements include immediate cessation of military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiation period to address unresolved issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, alongside discussions on sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets during follow-up negotiations.

This agreement follows two significant developments. First, Israel conducted military strikes on Iranian targets in western and central Iran around a week ago, marking the first such actions since April. Explosions were reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and other cities in response to Iranian missile launches that were highly performative. Second, Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for what he described as slow progress in negotiations to end the conflict, indicating that the US could resume strikes against Iranian infrastructure.

5 bullet points on the agreement

Although the agreement does not necessarily mean that the root causes that prompted the war have fully disappeared, a few observations are worth mentioning and analyzing.

First, a lot of narrative spinning is occurring publicly at the moment. While the main parties are trying to sell the agreement as a victory, there are factions within the broader regional camps (such as hardliners in both Iran and Israel) that oppose it. Critics in Iran have labeled the agreement a “humiliating capitulation,” arguing that it involves unjustified concessions. Hardline opponents have publicly criticized the negotiating team, with Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stating that the latest draft is “more damaging” than previous versions. Similarly, Israeli officials emphasized that Israel was not directly involved in negotiating the US–Iran deal and does not necessarily consider itself bound by its provisions. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel would not withdraw from territory seized in Lebanon and would continue to act against threats from Hezbollah and Iran if necessary.

Second, the timing of the agreement suggests that Iran was running out of options. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) focused on messaging and performative measures, the gap between their narrative and reality widened, with Iran’s ability to endure further pressure significantly diminishing. Trump’s counter-blockade against Iran’s restriction of the Strait of Hormuz imposed significant economic costs on Iran, leading to the decision to sign the agreement. It is estimated that the blockade could have cost Iran over $24 billion in just two months — almost equal to Iran’s reported total reserves of foreign currency — leaving the regime with little choice but to agree to the terms or face economic collapse.

Third, despite the negative reactions from hardliners in both Iran and Israel, the agreement highlights Trump’s genuine interest in reaching a resolution with Iran, especially following last year’s swift 12-day war between Israel and Iran. However, radical elements in both Iran and Israel seem intent on using procrastination, escalation, or military actions to sabotage meaningful attempts to achieve peace. Given that there is reportedly a 60-day negotiation period following the signing of the agreement, it is likely that these factions will continue to work against a comprehensive resolution.

Fourth, while Pakistan played a significant role in the mediation process, Qatar’s involvement was also crucial, as acknowledged by American, Pakistani, Saudi, and Turkish officials. Notably, neither the Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman nor the ministry itself reported any independent measures taken by Qatar, apart from endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts. In fact, a Qatari spokesman denied any independent role in the mediation at this stage. Qatar’s involvement appears to have been executed at the request of the United States and had several dimensions.

Primarily, Qatar facilitated technical issues between the US and Iran, such as enabling the transfer of Iranian funds without direct US involvement, thereby avoiding the perception of it being a US initiative or taxpayer-funded. Additionally, Qatar played a role in establishing a communication channel between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which emerged later in the mediation process. Finally, Qatar aligned itself with Saudi Arabia’s position, providing support for the Pakistani initiative.

Changing actors

Fifth, two awkward positions regarding the agreement can be highlighted. Firstly, the Europeans have been largely inactive in resolving the crisis yet somehow managed to host the official signing ceremony between the Americans and Iranians. Instead of crediting Pakistan, Switzerland offered to host the ceremony, which can be seen as an act of opportunism. Secondly, Oman, historically a favored mediator between the US and Iran, has been notably absent from this current arrangement. Oman’s position during this war was not popular in the Gulf Cooperation Council and beyond. According to a senior US administration official, Oman was removed from its mediation role in negotiations with Iran after the US concluded that Muscat had acted “very duplicitously” during the talks.

Finally, we must approach the prospects of the agreement with caution. It is essential to recognize that this is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a transitional framework. The future of the agreement will largely depend on the outcomes of negotiations in the next 60 days. Given that several factions within Iran and Israel are opposed to the agreement, we should not dismiss the possibility of sabotage, particularly from Israel.

Ali Bakir is an assistant professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University and senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. Anadolu

Continue reading

You Missed

Israel Continues to Target Children – UN Report

Israel Continues to Target Children – UN Report

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness