Hezbollah’s entry into the war reflects strategic calculations shaped by Israeli escalation, regional alliances, and Lebanon’s fractured politics.
Key Takeaways
Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire in Lebanon through airstrikes, raids, and surveillance operations.
Hezbollah’s response has so far remained limited compared to Israel’s sustained military actions.
Lebanon’s political leadership has failed to present a unified response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah’s intervention reflects strategic concerns about Israel’s long-term plans in Lebanon and the broader war against Iran.
The coordination between Iran, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and Iraqi factions suggests the Axis of Resistance continues to operate collectively.
A Regional War Expands
Hezbollah’s decision to enter the ongoing regional confrontation did not occur in isolation. The latest escalation began when the United States and Israel launched major strikes against Iran, triggering waves of Iranian retaliation across the region.
The conflict quickly expanded beyond Iran itself. Iranian retaliatory strikes targeted US military assets and positions across the Gulf. The war rapidly assumed the character of a wider regional confrontation involving multiple actors aligned along competing geopolitical blocs.
Within this context, attention turned to Lebanon, where Hezbollah—one of the most powerful non-state actors in the Middle East—began limited military operations against Israeli positions along the border.
The central question quickly emerged: Why did Hezbollah enter the war?
The answer lies in a combination of military, political, and strategic considerations that go far beyond the immediate battlefield.
Did Hezbollah Violate the Ceasefire?
A central claim advanced by Israel and some Western governments – and even anti-Hezbollah factions in Lebanon itself – is that Hezbollah’s actions represent a violation of the ceasefire arrangements that followed previous rounds of conflict along the Lebanese border.
However, the reality on the ground presents a far more complex picture.
For months, Israel has carried out continuous violations of Lebanese sovereignty through airstrikes, drone surveillance, artillery fire, and cross-border incursions.
According to Lebanese government figures and reports by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Israel has committed thousands of violations of Lebanese airspace and territory since the ceasefire arrangements took effect.
Lebanese officials have repeatedly documented Israeli overflights, drone operations, and missile strikes inside the country. UNIFIL has also confirmed frequent violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli aircraft.
These actions have not been merely symbolic. Israeli strikes have caused civilian casualties and extensive destruction of homes and infrastructure in southern Lebanon.
Villages near the border have experienced repeated bombardments, forcing families to flee and damaging agricultural land and civilian property.
At the same time, Israeli officials have openly signaled that they have no intention of withdrawing fully from Lebanese territory or halting military operations.
Several Israeli leaders have stated publicly that Israel intends to maintain military pressure on Hezbollah and potentially establish a longer-term security presence along the border.
In this context, Hezbollah’s response—limited strikes against Israeli military positions—cannot easily be framed as the violation of a functioning ceasefire.
Rather, Hezbollah and its allies argue that no real ceasefire existed, given the scale and persistence of Israeli violations.
Did Hezbollah Violate Lebanese Consensus?
Another argument advanced by critics inside Lebanon is that Hezbollah’s intervention undermines national consensus and drags the country into a war it cannot afford.
Lebanon’s government, which maintains close ties with Western governments and the United States, has repeatedly blamed Hezbollah for escalating tensions.
However, the government has struggled to provide a convincing explanation of how it interprets Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanese territory.
While condemning Hezbollah’s actions, Lebanese authorities have largely failed to respond militarily—or even diplomatically in an effective way—to Israeli strikes.
The Lebanese state has not fired a single bullet at Israeli forces despite repeated attacks inside its territory. This has deepened the political divide within Lebanese society.
Lebanon has long been fractured along sectarian, ideological, and geopolitical lines. Some factions align closely with Western and Gulf states, while others view themselves as part of the Axis of Resistance, which includes Iran, Hezbollah, Ansarallah in Yemen, Palestinian resistance factons and several Iraqi factions.
Within this divided political landscape, there has never been a unified national consensus regarding confrontation with Israel.
For many Lebanese—particularly in communities that have historically borne the brunt of Israeli attacks—Hezbollah’s military posture is viewed as a form of deterrence rather than escalation.
So Why Did Hezbollah Enter the War?
Hezbollah’s decision to join the conflict appears to reflect a broader strategic calculation.
From Hezbollah’s perspective, the Israeli war was likely to expand regardless of its immediate actions.
Israeli leaders have repeatedly declared their intention to reshape the regional balance of power and weaken Iran and its allies.
For Hezbollah, the prospect of Iran being significantly weakened carries profound implications.
If Iran’s position in the region were severely damaged, Hezbollah could find itself facing Israel largely alone—while simultaneously confronting pressure from the United States, Western governments, and regional Arab powers aligned with Washington.
In such a scenario, Hezbollah could be isolated militarily and politically.
Entering the war now, while Iran remains actively engaged and regional allies are mobilized, allows Hezbollah to operate within a broader coalition rather than as an isolated actor.
It also ensures that Hezbollah retains influence over the eventual diplomatic outcome of the conflict.
Wars in the Middle East often conclude not with decisive military victories but through negotiated exits once the architects of war decide to pursue a political strategy.
By participating in the conflict, Hezbollah guarantees that it will have a seat at the negotiating table when such an exit strategy eventually emerges.
Does This Mean the Axis of Resistance Has Been Reborn?
Some analysts have framed the current coordination between Iran, Hezbollah, Ansarallah, and Iraqi factions as the “rebirth” of the Axis of Resistance.
But the reality may be more nuanced.
The Axis of Resistance was never destroyed. Instead, each actor within it has often had to adapt to its own domestic political realities.
Hezbollah operates within Lebanon’s complex sectarian political system. Iraqi factions must navigate Baghdad’s fragile state institutions. Ansarallah governs large parts of Yemen under conditions of war and blockade. Hamas remains focused on defeating the Israeli-US scheme aimed at disarming resistance and ethnically cleansing Palestinians from Gaza,
These differing political contexts often limit how openly each actor can coordinate with the others. Yet recent developments suggest that the axis is functioning in a coordinated manner.
Iranian strikes across the region, Ansarallah’s operations in the Red Sea, and Hezbollah’s engagement along the Lebanese border indicate a level of strategic alignment.
The current conflict has therefore revealed not the rebirth of the axis but its continued operational existence.
Our Strategic Analysis
Hezbollah’s intervention reflects a calculated strategic move rather than an impulsive escalation.
Israel’s continued military pressure on Lebanon, combined with the wider war against Iran, created conditions in which Hezbollah perceived long-term risks in remaining passive.
By entering the conflict in a limited but coordinated manner, Hezbollah seeks to shape the strategic environment before the war reaches a stage where diplomatic negotiations become inevitable.
In doing so, Hezbollah is signaling that the future of Lebanon—and the broader regional balance of power—cannot be determined without its participation.
The Lebanese group Hezbollah said Wednesday it carried out several drone and missile attacks targeting Israeli military sites and command headquarters in central and northern Israel.
In a statement, Hezbollah said it targeted with a missile the Dado base, the headquarters of the Israeli army’s Northern Command, northeast of the city of Safed in northern Israel.
The group said its fighters also targeted the Giv’a drone control base east of Safed with a precision-guided missile.
A swarm of attack drones also hit the headquarters of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) in central Israel, it added.
Earlier Wednesday, the Lebanese group said it targeted a gathering of Israeli army forces at the Metula site in northern Israel with a rocket barrage.
Hezbollah said the attacks came “in response to the criminal Israeli aggression that targeted dozens of Lebanese cities and towns, including Beirut’s southern suburbs.”
The situation escalated in Lebanon on Monday after Hezbollah targeted a military site in northern Israel with rockets and drones in response to ongoing Israeli airstrikes and the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in ongoing US-Israeli attacks on Iran.
The Israeli army launched a series of airstrikes in response, killing at least 40 people and injuring nearly 250 others. The military also launched a ground incursion into southern Lebanon.
Israel imposes strict censorship on reporting casualties caused by missiles launched by Iran and Hezbollah or intercepted by its defenses and also prohibits the circulation of related footage.
Israel has killed more than 4,000 people and wounded about 17,000 others during its assault on Lebanon that began in October 2023 and expanded into a full-scale war in September 2024. Anadolu
Two months after the signing of the ceasefire, that remains merely ink on paper, the region is yet to witness a fundamental shift to the second phase: A transition from a strategy of destruction to a withdrawal mechanism, and from the logic of military operations to a framework of international administration, paving the way for a political process to ultimately lead to the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state.
However, the realities on the ground today proves this path is nothing more than a theoretical assumption quickly crumbling in the face of a complex reality.
Two months after the supposed ceasefire, a completely different truth emerges; Israel continues its ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. Palestinian civilians are dying from the bitter cold, just as they previously perished from the bombardment, while unilateral decisions are being made whilst deepening the chasm of mistrust between the parties supposedly partnering in ending this humanitarian tragedy and implementing the Donald Trump plan, who claims to have ended a three-thousand-year-old war.
What was supposed to be a temporary withdrawal line for the Israeli army has, according to its generals, become a new de facto border called the “Yellow Line,” swallowing up more than half of the Gaza Strip.
Early this month, the army’s chief of staff Eyal Zamir addressed his troops, asserting Israel “now exercises effective control over vast areas of the Strip” and its military units “will maintain their positions on these defensive lines.” He explicitly declared “the Yellow Line represents a new border of an advanced line of defense to protect Israeli society, and serves as a framework for the ongoing military operational activity.”
From these comments it can be understood the ceasefire line is no longer a temporary, transitional measure, but has effectively become a forcibly-imposed border, a permanent defensive zone, and a legal framework that legitimizes a long-term Israeli military presence within territories that, until recently, were an integral part of the Palestinian territories.
These pronouncements are not merely political rhetoric. The “Yellow Line” is now embodied on the ground by massive, yellow-painted concrete blocks that bisect the Gaza Strip to a depth of between 1.5 and 6.5 kilometers. Before the recent escalation, the Strip extended about 41 kilometers in length and between 6 and 12 kilometers in width. As it stands however, Israel has tightened its grip on more than half of this area in one of the world’s most densely-populated regions. This has exacerbated overcrowding, drastically reduced usable land, and devastated the agricultural sector, thus intensifying the humanitarian catastrophe, entrenching mass forced displacement, deepening the destruction, and contributing to the complete collapse of the institutional infrastructure.
The Zamir statements cannot be separated from the context of the pronouncements of war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, who, from northern occupied Palestine, spoke of the expansion of his northern and northeastern borders by establishing a demilitarized buffer zone from the Syrian capital, Damascus, to the occupied Golan Heights. This is being made with the advance of his military forces into the UN-monitored buffer zone and the occupation of the Syrian side of Mount Hermon (Jabal al-Sheikh). Also, Israel is presently establishing establishing a “buffer zone” in the territory of southern Lebanon, destroying border villages and/or leaving them completely depopulated and deploying military reinforcements at strategic border points to impose a new security and geopolitical reality by force.
According to the Trump’s plan the second phase was supposed to begin after Hamas fulfilled its commitment to release all Israeli captives, both alive and deceased, and after Netanyahu announced his readiness to move to this phase.
However, this transition was contingent on two fundamental conditions: The deployment of international peacekeeping forces and the complete disarmament of Hamas. Herein lies the complexity of the issue; Netanyahu has publicly expressed skepticism about the ability of any international force to carry out the disarmament mission and has categorically stated that Hamas’s disarmament will be achieved through coercive military means and under the direct supervision of Israeli forces.
In contrast, Hamas maintains its categorical refusal to disarm except within a comprehensive framework that includes the formation of a unified Palestinian ‘technocratic” government and a complete withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces. At a minimum, Hamas has expressed its willingness to store its weapons within an agreed-upon mechanism as part of a comprehensive political process, as confirmed by Bassem Naim, a member of the movement’s political bureau, in recent statements.
The current situation reveals that Israel is treating the existing circumstances as a strategic opportunity to expand its geographical borders and exert maximum pressure on the Palestinian people, paving the way for what it calls “voluntary displacement” under a humanitarian pretext—a pretext it itself created.
Simultaneously, it is deliberately and systematically obstructing the transition to the second phase of the Trump agreement by continuing its policies of occupation, killing, and destruction under the guise of a ceasefire.
It is clear this arrangement serves its strategic interests and intersects with broader Western interests, with the ultimate result being the aborting of any chance of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state, and keeping the Gaza Strip – as it has always been – a besieged enclave, which Israel exploits to achieve its political agenda and strengthen its internal cohesion, and turning it into a field laboratory in which various military weapons, biological tools and advanced technological techniques are tested, but with a reduction in the population, which allows it to continue what is strategically known as “managing the conflict” in the long term.
This article by Ismail Al Sharif was originally written in Arabic for the Addustour daily and published in Crossfirearabia.com.
A legendary political prisoner, recently freed after 41 years in French prison, Georges Abdallah offers a revolutionary manifesto where he speaks about his unwavering views on Palestine, resistance, liberation, and the future of the Arab world.
Our meeting with the legendary Georges Abdallah was scheduled for four o’clock on a Wednesday afternoon. We left Beirut around 11:30 a.m. to arrive on time at his home in Koubeiyat, in the north of the country. In Tripoli, Dalal Shahrour and Nazira El Hajj, two women activists from the Beddawi and Naher El Bared Palestinian refugee camps, joined us, as eager as we were to meet one of our remaining heroes.
We arrived at 3:30, and were welcomed by Abdallah’s niece, his brother Robert, and his sister. We joined them on the balcony of their warm family home and were greeted with a cold drink and sweets, a custom in Arab culture for joyous occasions. We congratulated the family on Abdallah’s release and inquired about the time allocated for the interview. Robert told us we would have half an hour, and we tried to bargain for more.
A bit later, we were allowed inside the house where Georges was sitting. He stood up and greeted us warmly, as if we had known each other for years. His presence was so powerful even before he uttered a word. We briefly introduced ourselves and The Palestine Chronicle and presented him with a copy of a book by another revolutionary before diving into our countless questions.
In our one-hour conversation, we touched on Georges’ life in prison and after his liberation, before moving on to issues like Palestine, Lebanon, the future of Zionism as embodied in the Israeli entity, the crisis of the Palestinian national project, the relationship between socialism and Islamic resistance, and more. Georges’s iron will and solid principles are intact and present in every breath he takes and every word he utters. He is convinced that the resistance in Palestine and Lebanon is the answer to the ongoing Israeli occupation and that Israel, which embodies the Western imperialist project, has reached the final chapter of its existence.
Read more in the full interview.
‘Prison Does Not Change Fighters’
Samaa Abu Sharar (The Palestine Chronicle): We all know George Abdallah as an international activist who dedicated his life to just causes, most notably the Palestinian cause and the fight against colonialism in all its forms. How would you present yourself?
Georges Abdallah: (I am) a fighter amongst our Arab fighters, a fighter of the Palestinian revolution, and a fighter of the Lebanese resistance against imperialist and Zionist oppression. Our activism stems from our assessment that the Zionist entity is an organic extension of Western imperialism. We consider that this entity has currently reached the final chapter of its existence, and, therefore, it will unleash all its barbaric and murderous reserves on our people. The masses of our people must prepare for this stage, keeping in mind that they will prevail over this entity.
What you say is completely in line with how many people view you: as an icon of resistance who represents the correct compass of our great struggle. So there is no difference between how Georges Abdallah sees himself and how people see him.
Our people have great confidence in the Palestinian resistance, so any expression of resistance is highly esteemed. Our people are prepared to provide a lot of support and facilitate the struggle. What is happening in Gaza and the West Bank today confirms this. As an ordinary fighter in the ranks of the resistance, historically, I see that our people are steadfast. There are loopholes, as always happens in revolutions, but this does not stop us. The masses in Gaza embrace their emaciated children, continue to resist, and refuse to raise the white flag. Thus, we can say that the resistance is in great shape despite all the subjective and objective problems.
Georges Abdallah: Prison does not change fighters. In reality, prison helps shape sound positions if the required solidarity from resistance forces is available, and this is what happened with me.
Palestine Chronicle: This means that Georges Abdallah, who was imprisoned 41 years ago, came out of prison the same man?
Georges Abdallah: An older fighter, with more experience and more willingness to give.
Palestine Chronicle: How did you relate to time while in prison?
Georges Abdallah: In fact, time in prison for fighters and activists is a framework within which life’s priorities are organized. If the activist has found solidarity—in other words, if he has a group of people who make solidarity a practical expression within the daily struggle of our nation’s masses—then the imprisoned activist is simply a fighter doing what he must under exceptional circumstances.
Time becomes tight, as he doesn’t have enough time to do whatever he deems appropriate to support the struggle, whether in terms of reading, interventions, or other things. This applied to me.
Palestine Chronicle: So, time was tight for you in prison?
Georges Abdallah: Time was not sufficient to do what is required of fighters and activists. I did all I could within my modest capabilities.
Palestine Chronicle: You said in your interview with Al Mayadeen that your day in prison was very organized and that you had a daily schedule that involved much reading of the mail you received. With whom did you correspond while in prison?
Georges Abdallah: With fighters and activists who were in prison or remained in prison, with my family, and with friends. This is normal, considering there were facilities that were secured through the struggle of the masses in this country or that. In French prisons, a telephone was made available to call whomever you wish, provided you gave the number to the relevant authorities. Accordingly, you could contact anyone you wished.
Books were provided by comrades, so you had ample opportunities for reading and doing other things. However, it takes a lot of time to read everything that needs to be read and to participate in the ongoing debate on these matters.
Palestine Chronicle: Were you one of the people who made many phone calls?
Georges Abdallah: One of the people who did what he had to do.
Palestine Chronicle: Were the phone calls more with friends or family members?
Georges Abdallah: The family was certainly within the circle of communication. There is a continuum, so to speak, that extends from home to the arena of struggle. The concerns of the homeland are an essential part of my life, so communication is constant through family, friends, loved ones, and all other expressions of struggle present in our country and abroad. I did not feel alienated in this regard.
Palestine Chronicle: Were you subjected to any psychological or physical violations while in prison?
Georges Abdallah: I was subjected to everything fighters and activists are subjected to. I can say that all the procedures didn’t constitute a problem for me. In other words, from a personal perspective, I wasn’t subjected to any particular pressure, and from an objective perspective, I had plenty of resources that were made available by my numerous comrades.
There were a large number of comrades, and they alternated so they could all come to see me in prison. Therefore, I never experienced the feeling of alienation or isolation. The solidarity movement is part of the daily struggle; therefore, there was no personal anguish in that sense. There is a struggle with time. I wanted to use all of this time to enhance my readings and interventions for as long as possible. However, there are limits to this time because of life’s priorities.
Palestine Chronicle: What did you miss most while in prison, besides freedom, of course?
Georges Abdallah: In reality, I missed all aspects of life and all its expressions.
Palestine Chronicle: Such as?
Georges Abdallah: Everything. It’s not easy to say what I missed most: family, loved ones, the stars, the trees, and the animals. You miss the comrades, you miss your discussions with them; there is no set priority.
Palestine Chronicle: If you could go back in time, is there anything you would have done differently in your struggle?
Georges Abdallah: I am not currently engaging in self-criticism of my struggle. Throughout my struggle, I have done everything I consider appropriate for the path of struggle. Certainly, as with everyone else, there are successes and failures, and there is the possibility to improve this or that.
However, overall, I am satisfied with my path of struggle. Despite its modesty, it is acceptable as any other fighter or activist of our people within the framework of the available popular base.
‘The Resistance is in Great Shape’
Palestine Chronicle: Let’s talk about Palestine and Lebanon. You said in more than one interview that solidarity with Georges Abdallah was equal to, or part of, solidarity with Palestine.
Georges Abdallah: Solidarity with Georges Abdallah only takes on meaning when it falls within the framework of the struggle against the war of genocide in Gaza. This is within the path of struggle that falls under the issues of solidarity, not outside this framework or parallel to it. It falls within this framework, and I think it was very effective.
Palestine Chronicle: In your opinion, if it weren’t for the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation, would you be among us today?
Georges Abdallah: The “Al Aqsa Flood” is a very important operation. However, my case does not fall within this framework without going into details of the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation. The “Al Aqsa Flood” operation is very good in terms of its timing and effectiveness. Although we may find a loophole here or there, we are not in a position to beat ourselves up; we are in a position to evaluate the operation itself.
This operation came at the right time, is very appropriate, and has moved the struggle forward, placing new responsibilities on the shoulders of those who carried it out and lived it. I hope that the comrades within the framework of the Palestinian revolution will succeed in examining the national program of the Palestinian revolution. We know that there is a historical impasse facing the Palestinian national program.
Certainly, the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation has a role to play in clarifying some aspects and correcting some deviations. However, without resolving the crisis of the Palestinian national project, we will remain stuck and pay a heavy price. It is the responsibility of all forces in the Palestinian arena to work on overcoming this crisis because it is a crisis, not a matter of national or non-national unity. The crisis is deeper than that, and it is the responsibility of all active forces to do what they must to deserve to be part of the Palestinian national liberation movement.
Palestine Chronicle: What is this crisis?
Georges Abdallah: The crisis affects all aspects of the entire Palestinian national project. Israel is an organic extension of Western imperialism. Israel is not a colony or merely a settlement. It is an organic extension of this imperialist West. Therefore, confronting this imperialist West requires confronting the crisis of the imperialist system in its capitalist form. Those who confront this organic extension must stand on a ground hostile to capitalism.
Therefore, the leadership of the Palestinian bourgeoisie, in its various expressions—Islamic, nationalist, semi-nationalist, state-oriented, etc.—faces a problem in this regard. And the Palestinian left is in a very embarrassing situation, having so far been unable to build a national unity to confront this organic extension and failed to affirm national unity. Of course, these are great responsibilities that fall on everyone’s shoulders.
Nevertheless, the resistance is in great shape. The masses of our people continue to confront the Zionist enemy with great and advanced effectiveness, although the children of Gaza are emaciated and in dire need of a glass of milk. However, Gaza will not raise the white flag, and this is a very important issue. As for how we move forward, that is a matter for the Palestinian leadership to determine.
Palestine Chronicle: But we are keen to hear what you have to say in this regard!
Georges Abdallah: Everyone is concerned, but the actual leaders of the Palestinian revolution know best and are required to answer a number of questions. They are required to provide an answer on the crisis of this national project, the Oslo crisis, the crisis of the Palestinian Authority, the crisis of the division between Fatah and Hamas, the crisis of the dispersion of Palestinian forces, the crisis of the retirement of entire organizations that have been transformed into names without titles, the crisis of the mother of the Palestinian revolution, Fatah.
Where is Fatah and what is Fatah now? Where is Fatah and where is Hamas? What are they both doing? The crisis is complex and has numerous aspects. The Palestinian people have the intellectual, organizational, and resistance abilities to address this crisis, but a lot is required on all levels. It is not acceptable that there are around 60,000 full-time fighters with the Palestinian Authority whose task is limited to security coordination with Israel. And when we speak of national unity, which national unity are we talking about? A unity in which 60,000 fighters chase the Fedayeen (freedom fighters-PC) and hand them over to Israel, versus those who see their children dying of hunger and are still holding the flag! We all certainly know the dangers of a civil war, but the dilemma of the national project remains.
The leaders of all Palestinian organizations agreed on something at the Beijing conference, but what was its result? The result was the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. Why assassinate Haniyeh? Because he was part of the wing in Hamas who called for unity. This does not mean that the Palestinian Authority welcomed the call. This is the crisis of the national project. Those who bear the responsibility are those in Palestine and outside of Palestine; they are the resistance fighters in Gaza and the West Bank, and even those who are part of the Palestinian Authority and inside the Israeli prisons. It is certainly a major crisis, but I am sure that the active members of Palestinian society will be able to overcome it.
‘No Heaven without Gaza’
Palestine Chronicle: You spoke briefly about the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation. Were you surprised when you first heard about it?
Georges Abdallah: The “Al Aqsa Flood” operation surprised everyone, and that in itself is an issue and falls within the scope of the crisis of the national project. This certainly does not undermine its value. “Al Aqsa Flood” marked a turning point in the history of the conflict with Israel, but it also imposes enormous responsibilities on everyone. The enemy is well aware that it is now in the final chapter of its existence; it is not a matter of a military setback. The “Al Aqsa Flood” operation is the first step in determining the priorities of this final chapter.
Everyone must rise to this responsibility, especially those in charge of the priorities of the struggle in Palestine and outside Palestine. The Arab street also bears a responsibility, and those in charge of the national project must ask the question: why this abandonment on the part of the Arab street?
The Palestinian leadership is no stranger to this abandonment. When Egypt and the UAE are playing the roles of mediators, how can we expect the Egyptian masses to apologize for not being at the forefront of the struggle? This is a tremendous crisis. The value of the Palestinian revolution lies in its role as a lever of the Arab revolution. It is the historical lever of the Arab revolution, but it is no longer playing its role for several reasons. The Palestinian leadership must answer why it abandoned this role.
I see Qatar, which hosts the main base of American imperialism, as a mediator. The question is: a mediator between whom and whom? I also see Egypt, with a population of 120 million Arabs, as a mediator. The same question applies. Egypt is Al Azhar (considered the largest Islamic institution in the Arab World-PC), and Al Azhar is not a tourist agency; it is a civilized institution that encompasses all the values of this nation with people of different colors. Eighty million people consider Al Azhar their (moral) authority. Where are the eighty million? Who is responsible for their inaction? Al Azhar is the one responsible for them. What has it done, and what is the role of the Palestinian revolution in this context?
It suffices that one of the eighty million, meaning one million, move toward Rafah and perform prayers there. They are not required to carry a gun and offer it to Hamas or the Popular Front (for the Liberation of Palestine – a socialist organization-PC) or any other faction; all they have to do is offer a cup of water or a cup of milk to the children of Gaza. Al Azhar is responsible for this inaction. It must know that its prayers are not accepted if they are not held at the crossing to Gaza. It must also be known that there is no path to heaven for all believers in Egypt because the children of Palestine have occupied all the roads while they are ascending to heaven. Those who wish to enter heaven must come to Gaza; otherwise, there is no heaven for them.
Al Azhar, along with the Sheikhs of Palestine and the leaders of the Islamic movements, know this all too well. They are the ones to determine whether Egypt is a mediator or a partner in this genocide. They also know whether Saudi Arabia and Mohammad Bin Abdallah are playing their role or not. The Kaaba of Mohammad Bin Abdallah is not an antique vessel; it embodies everything this nation has. Where is it in all this?
Palestine Chronicle: Do you agree with those who say that the Arab people are powerless, ruled by dictators and agents of the Israeli entity?
Georges Abdallah: This is utterly unacceptable. The Arab regimes are not agents; they are actually participating in the ongoing genocide, and this is certainly not up for discussion. What I see, however, is that not a single person in Egypt was killed in the street while demonstrating, simply because they did not demonstrate. Where are they from young Greta, who came all the way from Sweden to raise a glass of water in solidarity with Gaza? Where are they from Rima Al Hassan, who came from Belgium and raised a glass of milk in solidarity with Gaza?
Where are the sailors of Egypt? These activists came in a boat not even fit to carry fish, and the sailors of Egypt watch like “monkeys.” Where is the Palestinian revolution in all this? Betrayal is in the entire Arab world; a demonstration in Yemen or in other Arab cities is not enough. Where is Jordan? Where are the masses of Jordan? Where are the 60% of the people of Amman who are originally Palestinians? Certainly, all this falls within the crisis of the national project, because these forces are responsible for national action. The Palestinian national action either works to elevate Palestine as a revolutionary lever for the entire Arab nation or works to shield these regimes.
Palestine Chronicle: Following the atrocities in Gaza, many who were believers in the resistance project have stopped being so. What do you say to that?
Georges Abdallah: I don’t see such people. I see parents in Gaza watching their children trembling as skeletons and still raising the red flag, not the white flag. Gaza has not yet raised the white flag, and the masses of Gaza will not leave Gaza. There is no time to self-flagellate or claim that morale has collapsed.
In Gaza, there are heroes. There are no people on this planet like those in Gaza. Gaza has been hit three times more than what hit Hiroshima was. 17,000 tons of explosives in Gaza, while Dresden in Germany was hit with 5,000 tons. Gaza did not surrender while Dresden fell. Today, there isn’t a single city in Europe that does not raise the Palestinian keffiyeh, the symbol of freedom.
The Palestinian revolution has historically never been as prominent on the global stage as it is now. The problem remains in our national project, in our national leadership. The masses of the world, all over the planet, stand with Gaza. Do our leaders really stand with Gaza? When 30 to 35 percent of the Jewish youth in America raise the Palestinian keffiyeh and the Palestinian flag and declare that this Zionist entity is the enemy of the Jewish people and of Palestine, what does this mean? It means that the countdown to Israel’s existence has started. Where are our leaders in all this? It’s not enough for leaders to be martyred or chased after. They need to pinpoint the energy of the masses and be able to invest in it. Again, this is not happening because this is part of the crisis we spoke about.
Let us not forget that over 50 percent of the prisoners of the Palestinian revolution in Israeli jails are from Fatah, but it is also Fatah that brokered the Oslo Accords, and it is the one that caused the crisis of the national project. Nonetheless, Fatah remains the mother of martyrs, the mother of the revolution, and the mother of prisoners. This is the dilemma of the national project. How do we explain that over 50 percent of Fatah members are in Israeli captivity, while there are 60,000 Fatah fighters who are mercenaries under the command of (PA President Mahmoud) Abbas and others? This embodies the national project crisis.
These issues need to be addressed by the leadership of the Fatah movement. It is a reality we must confront. How will they confront it? The forces that lead the Palestinian struggle everywhere must answer these questions. They should also provide an answer regarding the status of our camps outside of Palestine and their fate. The Palestinian revolution is a revolution of camps. The Palestinian people are a people of camps. There are no Palestinian people without camps. Camps are the Palestinian identity. Where are our camps today? What is Sabra and Shatila today? What is the percentage of Palestinians inside the camp? What is their future? The relevant leaders must answer.
These places are semi-liberated in principle and are not places of security chaos as we are told. They are semi-liberated because they bear all the characteristics of the liberation of Palestine; they are not hubs that bear the characteristics of prostitution, drug smuggling, etc. Who bears the responsibility for the camps? Again, this is the crisis of the national project.
Palestine Chronicle: What will the scene in Palestine be like after the genocide in Gaza?
Georges Abdallah: The genocide in Gaza will not continue. The genocide will not succeed, and Gaza and the West Bank will triumph as Israel witnesses the last chapter of its existence, and this is not a poetic speech.
Palestine Chronicle: You have repeated this in more than one interview.
Georges Abdallah: I am not the only one to repeat it. We have to understand that Israel has never been through what it is currently going through; this is why it will use its entire barbaric stockpile on us. This will translate into intensifying its killing machine to the maximum. Israel will throw all its unexploited barbarism at our masses in the coming days, weeks, and months. What are the leaders of the national project going to do in light of this? How will those who planned the “Al Aqsa Flood” operation face this? These are questions that require answers from all factions.
When a leader like Yehya Sinwar falls as a martyr and not a fugitive in a shelter in Qatar or somewhere else, his resistance is bound to triumph. Our people’s resistance will triumph. It will triumph because of people like Sinwar and Haniyeh who neither fled nor sought ‘peace’. These leaders and their resistance cannot be defeated. Our people are aware of this and will not raise the white flag, neither in Gaza nor anywhere else. Accordingly, the responsibility of the current leaders is immense to find solutions for the national crisis. These solutions will inevitably come, although we surely regret that they are delayed because the human cost is immense.
Resolving the Left-Islamic Dilemma
Palestine Chronicle: Could the Gaza genocide kick-start a world revolution?
Georges Abdallah: It is bound to happen, if not today, then tomorrow. The greatest responsibility falls on the shoulders of the leaders of the revolution; they are the ones to anticipate the next stage, not me.
Palestine Chronicle: How do you view the Islamic revolutions in the Arab world? Your approach seems to be different from many leftists. We have the impression that you view the issue from an operational perspective rather than an ideological one. Is this accurate?
Georges Abdallah: We are not engaged in an ideological competition; we have Arab masses, the majority of whom are Muslim. This is the organic makeup of our nation. This is not an ideological choice. These people resist with whatever is at their disposal, be it the Quran, a scientific analysis, or a missile. It is the responsibility of those in charge of the struggle to determine what is at the disposal of the Arab masses.
When the Egyptian plays the mediator and the Qatari hosts the biggest American base, what message am I giving to the Arab masses? Do I expect that meeting with Egyptian intelligence, so they can coordinate with Qatari and American intelligence, will find me a way out of the revolution crisis or the national project crisis? I doubt it. All these actions contribute to the impasse we find ourselves in, including the inaction of the Arab masses.
Palestine Chronicle: Do you think there can be a meeting point between the left and the current Islamic revolutions?
Georges Abdallah: All liberation movements have established a national project within which all societal actors work. Wherever a revolution triumphs, it does so through national unity. But that unity is not that of one person meeting with another; it actually entails the meeting of the entire popular bloc together to champion a project.
Let’s take Al Azhar again. As any Arab or activist connected to Palestine, I don’t view it in light of the relationship between Marxist ideology and Islamic ideology, but rather in view of its objective position within the framework of our people’s movement. The same applies to Mecca. I don’t look at it from an ideological perspective but rather from its significance to Muslims around the world. What have those in charge of the national project done with their ‘Qiblah’ to incite the masses of the world to move toward Palestine? I don’t say this because I’m a communist or because I’m a believer; I say this as any person with the slightest connection to the conflict who looks at this matter and says, this is simply inconceivable.
Lebanon: Resisting vs ‘Watching’
Palestine Chronicle: Moving to Lebanon, away from slogans, how do you see the situation there?
Georges Abdallah: The situation is delicate, but it is also good. The resistance has sacrificed the best of its leaders as martyrs.
Palestine Chronicle: But there is a deep division in the country.
Georges Abdallah: What we have in Lebanon is not different from any other country in the world. In all the resistance movements of the world, you will find people who will sacrifice themselves in defense of their country and cowards who simply watch. In the entire world, there isn’t a country where the resistance enjoys the support of all the people. Sectarian affiliation is another issue, but I ask: who is behind the project that defends Lebanon’s identity and dignity? The resistance. There is an occupation; thus, the resistance is the initial response. Outside of the resistance, there is no solution with a national character.
You can say all you want about this resistance—that it needs to represent all the Lebanese people, or it needs to be this or that. However, for you to have the right to speak, you must be on the side of the resistance, not the occupation. If you are on the side of the occupation, then you have no right to speak or even exist. When your country is under occupation, whoever stands with the enemy, regardless of their status or justifications, has no right to even exist.
Palestine Chronicle: So, what do we do with these people?
Georges Abdallah: This is the responsibility of the resistance and the resistance masses: to figure out how to isolate the forces that cooperate with the enemy and open up to the masses of these forces. I did not spend a lifetime in captivity, nor did the martyr who sacrificed his life for the country, just to be labeled in the end as not representing the sovereignty of this country. Those who defend the homeland are the sovereignty of this country, not those who are ready to welcome Israel.
To say that there is a contradiction between the army and the resistance is wrong. In my opinion, as with any resistance fighter, our duty is to build a very strong national army to eliminate the justification for the existence of any resistance. This is our ambition. Our ambition is for a soldier to receive a decent salary—not twenty dollars per month—to be able to support his or her family and defend the country.
The leadership of the resistance should have the courage and clarity to open up to everyone with all its capabilities to build a national state that isolates all those who fail to fulfill their responsibility of sovereignty and defending the homeland for us all. A homeland in which we are all safe; otherwise, we will all lose, and no party will triumph over the other.
Palestine Chronicle: So, until we build such an army, do you believe that the resistance should remain?
Georges Abdallah: Certainly, what do we do otherwise? All over the world, resistance is the first response to any aggression. I hope we succeed at building a strong army able to defend us and one that replaces all resistance. But until this happens, do I remain naked in the face of Israel? Do I face Israel with a statement here and a statement there? I want an army that considers Israel the enemy.
Our soldiers are honorable; they are not members of a mafia. They are from all over Lebanon but they need to be well-trained and equipped to be able to defend the country and us. They tell us the US, France, and Britain are our friends. Brilliant, let them provide our army with weapons. But to come and tell me the US is our friend while it comes and asks us to surrender our weapons and recognize Israel, or otherwise Israel will slap you—this is unacceptable. I will continue to resist with all the means I have. The resistance should not have allowed itself to welcome the American envoy or anyone else. We, the people of this country, should meet and determine how to resist the enemy, not how to submit to the enemy. We meet to determine how to confront, not how to normalize.
Everyone is well aware of what is required of Lebanon today. Lebanon is asked to abandon its Arab identity, and particularly to abandon the issue of Palestine, and live in peace with the Zionist enemy. There will be no coexistence with this enemy, not today, not tomorrow, and not the day after. If someone stands with this normalization, the resistance will fight him. If a party stands with this normalization, it will also fight it. If a sect stands with normalization, the resistance will also fight it. Whoever wants to gamble can do so, but normalization will not happen because our people will not accept it, and our people are a resistant people.
The existing resistance might have certain flaws, and we might have certain reservations towards it. Go ahead and get me a better resistance. But to come and tell me this resistance is not good and that you’ll bring me an Israeli soldier instead—then I will fight you and the Israeli soldier. It is as simple as that, despite the complexities of the situation in Lebanon.
We have a model meters away from us in Damascus, where the resistance project is being struck, and so is the state and society. They want Lebanon to turn into sects and tribes! They want to strike the state and the army and turn us into fighting militias, before America and Israel come to the rescue and tell each sect, “I will protect you from the other.”
What is being proposed in Lebanon is the same as what is happening in Syria. This will be fought by our masses of the resistance. You want better resistance? Work on building a better one. But to come and tell me that you have to submit to Israel for the sake of the sovereignty of Lebanon—this is absurd. Sovereignty is not a suit; sovereignty is operational measures to protect the country. Israel occupies part of the Lebanese soil; what should I do? Some say you have to submit to it and you will live in peace. I tell them no, our people have historically offered millions of martyrs and have not and will not accept an alliance with this entity.
Palestine Chronicle: Finally, do you fear for your life?
Georges Abdallah: No, I do not fear anything. Georges Abdallah is an ordinary citizen like all others and is not courageous, by the way.
Palestine Chronicle: How do you spend your time nowadays?
Georges Abdallah: As you can see, I spend it between interviews and welcoming friends. Later on, I want to visit the camps and see my friends and find out the whereabouts of my people.
What happened on October 7th was not merely a surprise, bloody attack for Israel—it marked a watershed moment that redefined its security doctrine and the limits of its regional project. It was a moment strikingly similar to what the events of September 11th represented for the United States. Immediately after the launch of the Al Aqsa Flood operation, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time in drawing a direct comparison to 9/11.
This comparison was not just rhetorical or meant to rally emotions. It reflects a much deeper strategic vision. Netanyahu is using the shock of the attack to advance an old-new Israeli project: restructuring the region’s security and political landscape in a way that guarantees Israel near-absolute security in a demilitarised environment, free of any threats.
After the 9/11 attacks, US neoconservatives in the White House seized the moment to implement the “Project for the New American Century”—a vision developed by think tanks and figures like Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Founded in 1997, the project aimed to reshape the global order and maintain American dominance, with Iraq, Syria, and Iran at the heart of its ambitions. September 11th became the ideal pretext to accelerate this vision through the invasion of Iraq and redrawing the map of the Middle East.
Today, Netanyahu is doing something strikingly similar. He sees the Al Aqsa Flood as a historic opportunity to accelerate his own regional vision—one that is no longer confined to Gaza but extends to southern Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Gaza again, and even the political dynamics in Turkey and several Arab states.
Those following Netanyahu’s rhetoric—and that of his ministers—can clearly see that Israel is no longer content with merely deterring its enemies. It now seeks to re-engineer the entire geopolitical landscape of the region. In southern Syria, Netanyahu stated clearly: “We will not allow any military forces threatening our borders to remain in southern Syria, and we will not return to the old equation.” Defence minister Yoav Gallant added that Israel will reshape the reality there to ensure its strategic security—which essentially means preventing the Syrian army from returning to its previous positions and enforcing a safe corridor between Sweida and the Golan Heights in line with Israeli interests.
In Lebanon, the objective has shifted from merely weakening Hizbollah to explicitly disarming the group entirely and eliminating its missile capabilities, which pose a direct threat to Israel.
In Gaza, the discussion is no longer about reconstruction or humanitarian relief. The conversation centers on the “day after”—meaning the complete removal of Hamas, disarmament of all resistance forces, and transforming Gaza into a powerless entity under full Israeli security control.
Even the proposed Palestinian state mentioned in the recent New York declaration is envisioned as a demilitarized one—to appease Netanyahu. Yet, he still won’t accept it. Israel has already moved past the idea of any sovereign Palestinian state. What’s “allowed”, according to current Israeli thinking, are fragmented cantons and voluntary or forced displacement of Palestinians.
As for Iran, Israel’s confrontation with Tehran is open-ended, aiming to reduce its missile capabilities and eliminate its strategic threat. It is also plausible that Israel’s strategic vision may extend to shaping the political scene in Turkey—possibly by pushing for a government more aligned with Israeli interests—and exerting pressure on certain Arab states, even those officially labeled as “friendly” to Tel Aviv.
This project is no longer tied to Netanyahu’s personal political survival. It has become close to a national consensus among Israeli institutions and political elites. Leaders like Yair Lapid or Naftali Bennett are unlikely to reverse course or return Israel to the pre-October 8th status quo.
What’s unfolding today isn’t a series of short-term security tactics. It’s a long-term strategic plan aimed at reshaping the regional balance of power and cementing Israel’s status as the undisputed regional superpower.
CrossFireArabia
