As Israel continues to occupy large swathes of southern Lebanon and destroy entire villages, recent statements by Hezbollah officials have raised questions about a shift in the group’s priorities.
The “resistance,” which has long portrayed itself as a force dedicated to liberating occupied territory and confronting Israel, is now speaking more frequently of a “defensive confrontation” and of preventing Israeli forces from reaching Beirut.
That shift has come after Hezbollah’s “red lines” fell one after another. Places including Bint Jbeil, Khiam and Beaufort Castle had become central symbols of the battle.
The latest was the Ali al-Taher ridge, which Hezbollah refused to hand over to the Lebanese army before it, too, fell. The Israeli military said on Thursday evening that it had achieved “operational control” of the highland area, both above and below ground.
Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem has said several times that the group “prevented Israel from reaching Beirut and disarming us.”
His remarks came after Israel seized large areas of the south and destroyed others, while Hezbollah refrained from responding to Israeli attacks since the “framework agreement.”
Israeli officials have said their forces will remain in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed — an equation the group rejects.
Seeking victory after defeat
Amid Hezbollah’s deepening predicament, ministerial sources say its officials are now searching for “a victory somewhere” to present to their support base, which is suffering the consequences of the “support wars.”
“The discourse Hezbollah is presenting at this stage — sometimes by talking about Beirut and at other times by declaring Ali al-Taher a red line — is directed at its supporters and social base in an attempt to convince them that what happened was not a defeat, despite the scale of the losses and destruction they suffered,” the sources told Asharq Al-Awsat.
Dr. Riad Kahwaji, a researcher and writer specializing in security and defense affairs, offered a similar assessment, saying Hezbollah changes its narrative according to the circumstances it faces and is now seeking to justify its defeat.
Everything the group said before the war about deterrence, its ability to destroy Tel Aviv and the equation of “Haifa in exchange for Beirut’s southern suburbs” proved unsuccessful, he said.
Kahwaji told Asharq Al-Awsat that Qassem had also spoken of close combat with Israeli forces and threatened that they would not dare launch a ground battle or enter the battlefield.
The results on the ground, however, included the loss of more than 50 villages and the advance of Israeli forces north of the Litani River, to the outskirts of Nabatieh and the Ali al-Taher hill.
On the defensive despite the occupation
Kahwaji said Hezbollah now needs a new narrative “to sell to its popular base.” That narrative is built around the claim that the group prevented Israel from reaching Beirut and has shifted into a defensive position after losing its ability to liberate occupied territory.
Talk of defense and preventing further Israeli advances has therefore replaced talk of liberation.
Kahwaji said Hezbollah no longer invokes most of the narratives it promoted before the war. It now hopes its support base will accept the existing reality and be persuaded by the “achievement” the group is seeking to present.
A shift reflecting the depth of the predicament
Dr. Imad Salamey, a professor of political science at Lebanese American University, offered another interpretation of the shift in Hezbollah’s rhetoric.
He said the group’s officials are attempting to recast its role and weapons as a means of defending all of Lebanon, rather than only the south or the Shiite community.
“The claim that Israel would have reached Beirut is intended to address Lebanon’s various sectarian communities and persuade them that Hezbollah’s weapons provide a national protective umbrella,” Salamey told Asharq Al-Awsat.
“According to this narrative, demands for the group’s disarmament threaten the security of all Lebanese.”
At the same time, Salamey said the rhetoric also reflects the scale of the pressure Hezbollah is facing.
“The group is trying to pressure the government into backing away from its demand that weapons be placed exclusively under state control and to reject any arrangement that would require its military withdrawal from the south or from areas such as Ali al-Taher,” he said.
“The paradox is that Hezbollah’s continued armed presence outside state authority provides Israel with the pretext it uses to justify its continuing operations and military presence, while Lebanon’s priority should be to remove those pretexts and push Israel to withdraw.”
Salamey said Hezbollah’s preemptive rejection of any arrangement requiring its withdrawal or disarmament could not be separated from the ongoing negotiations.
“In practice, Hezbollah is seeking to derail any negotiations based on the state restoring full security control over the south,” he said.
“This weakens the government’s position and restricts its ability to demand an Israeli withdrawal.”
