The 33-Day War and the Defeat of Israel in Lebanon; A Turning Point in Regional Power Dynamics

The 33-day war, also known as the July War, was a critical conflict that unfolded in 2006 between Israel and Hezbollah, a Lebanese resistance group. This war was rooted in a long history of animosity and territorial disputes, exacerbated by the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. The significance of this war extends beyond the immediate military engagements; it represents a clash of ideologies, national identities, and regional power structures. Israel, having previously maintained a reputation for military superiority, faced unprecedented challenges during this conflict.
This introduction delves into the historical context of the conflict, exploring the factors that contributed to Israel’s eventual withdrawal from Lebanon. It examines the military strategies employed by both sides, the role of international actors, and the socio-political ramifications of the war. The analysis highlights how Hezbollah’s resilience and tactical innovations played a crucial role in countering Israel’s advanced military capabilities. Furthermore, the study addresses the implications of the defeat of Israel in Lebanon, including shifts in regional alliances and the emergence of Hezbollah as a significant player in Middle Eastern politics.

An Overview of the Retreat and Defeat of Israel in Lebanon During the 33-Day War and the Events Leading Up to It

Although Zionists had occupied Palestine, their ambitions extended far beyond this territory. Their ultimate goal was to establish the Holy Land as the headquarters for global dominance. Zionism aimed to first conquer Jerusalem, then expand its reach from the Nile to the Euphrates [1], and eventually dominate the entire globe. Any obstacle or opposition along this path was to be eliminated, especially in the region. Anything that strengthened Palestinian resilience or any group resisting Zionist expansion had to be dismantled. One of Israel’s most significant obstacles in the region was the Lebanese Resistance [2].

To better understand this issue, we must take a closer look at Lebanon’s history and explore the answers to these questions through the lens of Lebanon-Israel conflicts:

1. What factors prompted Israel’s retreat from Lebanon?
2. What measures did the Zionist regime take to recover from its defeat in Lebanon?
3. Why is Israel’s retreat regarded as the definitive defeat of Israel in Lebanon?
4. What were the reasons behind the 33-Day War between Lebanon and Israel?
5. What events transpired during the 33-Day War, and what were its outcomes?
6. Was the ceasefire during the 33-Day War equivalent to the defeat of Israel in Lebanon?

The Beginning of the Zionist Regime’s Retreat

The first steps toward withdrawing from southern Lebanon were initiated by Netanyahu. In the summer of 1998, his cabinet announced its acceptance of UN Resolution 425. The Lebanese government, in turn, demanded Israel’s full and unconditional withdrawal from southern Lebanon. It also declared that no negotiations would take place with the Zionist regime. The Islamic Resistance of Lebanon supported the Lebanese government’s stance on continuing the fight against Israel and achieving complete liberation. As a result, in February 1999, Islamic Resistance fighters detonated a convoy escorting the Israeli military commander in southern Lebanon. When Hezbollah continued resistance, Israel was forced to retreat from the Hizzine region in June 1999, marking the first step toward a complete withdrawal. About a month after this initial retreat, Israel attempted to demonstrate its strength to Lebanon and pressure its government and people into negotiations. As part of this effort, Israel targeted Lebanon’s infrastructure, bombing several bridges and power plants, causing injuries and fatalities.

In May 1999, Ehud Barak from the Labor Party won the Israeli parliamentary elections. His victory paved the way for peace talks between Israel and Syria. Although these negotiations yielded no significant results, Hezbollah demonstrated its independence from Syria, setting the stage for the eventual defeat of Israel in Lebanon.

In December 1999, Imad Hussein Hamoud carried out an operation in the Marjayoun-Qlaiaa area, killing and wounding several Zionists. These pressures forced Israel’s proxy regime to retreat first from Kfar Houneh in January 2000, followed by the strategic Sajd base in February. These events continued to pave the way for the defeat of Israel in Lebanon. In late January 2000, as Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon was underway, Hezbollah fighters planted a bomb in the hideout of Aql Hashem, a prominent leader of Israel’s proxy forces, killing him. This assassination triggered Israeli attacks on Lebanon’s infrastructure. At the time, Antoine Lahad, the head of Israel’s proxy militia, was ill, and Aql Hashem effectively managed the organization. His death sowed fear among the proxy forces, causing many to flee. The disintegration of Israel’s proxy organization in Lebanon solidified the defeat of Israel in Lebanon.

The Withdrawal from Southern Lebanon

In early 2000, Hosni Mubarak visited Lebanon and praised the Islamic Resistance. Shortly after, a conference of Arab foreign ministers was held in Beirut, expressing support for Hezbollah and the resistance. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia also visited Lebanon, meeting Hezbollah representatives and declaring his support for the Islamic Resistance. It seemed that the defeat of Israel in Lebanon was becoming apparent to all.

The combination of military pressures and public dissatisfaction in Israel, alongside Hezbollah’s growing regional and international legitimacy, marked the turning point in the struggle. It led the Israeli cabinet of the illegitimate Zionist regime to officially approve the plan for the withdrawal of its army from southern Lebanon in March 2000.

In April 2000, Ehud Barak, the Prime Minister of the Zionist regime, publicly acknowledged the defeat of Israel in Lebanon. He wrote a letter to Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, announcing Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanese territory by July 2000. This event can be considered the first complete defeat of Israel in its conflicts with Arab nations, effectively shattering the myth of its invincibility. However, due to the intensified attacks by the Islamic Resistance and local forces against Israeli positions, Israeli forces withdrew forty-five days earlier than planned. Several operations carried out by Hezbollah fighters against Antoine Lahad’s forces inflicted heavy losses, triggering the initial stages of Israel’s retreat from southern Lebanon. According to the accounts of Zionist soldiers themselves, this was not merely a retreat—it was a resounding defeat and a massive flight. They even abandoned their uniforms and equipment in their haste to leave.

The Final Withdrawal from Lebanon

The Resistance forces began clearing areas like the Saliha base, overlooking the village of Qantara, without engaging in military confrontation, successfully liberating the region. Gradually, all occupied areas and villages were freed by the Resistance. On the night of May 24, the Israeli army abandoned all its positions in southern Lebanon, except for parts of the Shebaa Farms. The remaining members of Antoine Lahad’s Lebanese militia surrendered to the Lebanese army and Resistance fighters. While some key figures and their families sought refuge in Israel, the defeat of Israel in Lebanon was complete.

Israel, however, did not lose hope and shifted its strategy in the region. To recover the prestige lost during its humiliating retreat, Israel sought to ignite religious and sectarian conflict between Christians and Muslims. This was aimed at deflecting attention from its disgraceful defeat and shifting blame onto its adversaries. Yet, Hezbollah thwarted this dangerous plot. The organization dispatched influential clerics and prominent figures to southern Christian-majority areas to engage in dialogue with priests and local leaders Top of Formand raised awareness among Christian clergy to prevent any potential sedition or conflict.

This withdrawal marked the end of Israel’s troublesome invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 and had a profound impact on the Zionist regime’s media and military circles. Israel’s reputation was severely damaged, and numerous admissions were recorded, revealing their disgrace on political, military, and public fronts. For instance, some wrote: “Our casualties in Lebanon far exceeded those in the June 1967 war, where we seized the territories of three Arab countries. We fled Lebanon without any achievements to show for it.” These admissions were so frequent and explicit that Ehud Barak himself called it a “great disaster” and openly acknowledged the defeat of Israel in Lebanon.

The 33-Day War Between Lebanon and Israel

The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006 became known as the “July War,” the “33-Day War,” or the “Sixth War.” In 2004, Israel and Hezbollah had agreed during negotiations to exchange prisoners. However, the Zionist regime failed to fulfill its promise and did not release three Lebanese prisoners. In response, Hezbollah launched “Operation True Promise” in July 2006, capturing two Zionist soldiers. This act prompted Israel to declare war on Lebanon. It is worth noting that Israel had already intended to attack Lebanon, and this operation served as a pretext, accelerating their plans. The Zionist regime formally demanded Hezbollah’s disarmament and the release of the two captured soldiers.

Unfortunately, most Arab countries took a negative stance against Hezbollah, and Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations capitalized on this disunity. Adding to the challenges, divisions emerged among Lebanese officials, with some calling for Hezbollah’s disarmament.

The war lasted 33 days and inflicted losses on both sides. However, the scale of human and material casualties was incomparable. Israel’s military capabilities were far more advanced than Lebanon’s. In response, Hezbollah employed guerrilla warfare tactics, utilizing an extensive network of tunnels in southern Lebanon for command centers and ammunition storage.

Finally, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 [3] was passed in August 2006 to bring an end to the war and enforce a ceasefire. Since the draft of this resolution was prepared by the United States and France, its language and tone were biased in favor of Israel. The resolution called for the establishment of a zone extending from Israel’s border to the Litani River, where UN forces and the Lebanese army would be stationed. Unfortunately, this war caused immense damage to Lebanon. Israel concentrated its attacks on Shia-populated areas, severely damaging thousands of homes, vital facilities such as refineries, power plants, hospitals, and bridges. Significant pressure was placed on Hezbollah by both the Lebanese government and its people to comply with Israel’s demands. Nevertheless, Hezbollah performed exceptionally well, ultimately leading to Israel’s defeat in Lebanon. Some researchers argue that Hezbollah not only engaged the Zionist military but also managed to challenge the state of Israel itself. This war was a wake-up call for Zionists, as they realized that war could also inflict serious damage on them.

A crucial aspect of this conflict was that global superpowers aimed to use the 33-Day War to shape a “New Middle East” – one that was subservient to and colonized by the United States. Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah believed that Lebanon’s defeat in this war would pave the way for the continuation of the Zionist-American plan, involving further wars targeting Syria, Palestine, and the encirclement of Iran. However, the defeat of Israel in Lebanon dismantled this scheme.

As discussed, Israel had various objectives for this war. By its end, it had retreated from all of its initial goals, failing to achieve any of them. Witnesses and researchers alike consider Hezbollah the victor of the conflict and affirm the defeat of Israel in Lebanon.

The Key to Hezbollah’s Success in Lebanon

The confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon was a microcosm of the struggle between divine power and earthly power, a clash of faith and force, a battle between truth and falsehood. It was a test of wills and trials. In this confrontation between two armies—one representing good and the other evil—the fate of the army of Satan was evident. However, Hezbollah had to endure trials and prove its resilience on this path. Remarkably, Lebanon’s success or failure in this battle did not solely depend on military strategies; it hinged on how Hezbollah performed in its spiritual and moral tests during the conflict. The unequal battle demonstrated that the power of monotheism surpasses arrogance and polytheism, and this truth could only be proven if the hearts of God’s soldiers were filled with unwavering belief in divine unity, seeing no power but that of God. Hezbollah needed to prove that a small group could render a massive army powerless and paralyzed—on the condition that they feared no force [4]. Fortunately, Hezbollah had a comprehensive and sufficient model: the “Islamic Revolution of Iran,” from which it had learned and implemented the principles of struggle and jihad. These principles regarded Satan and his army as destined to lose, rejecting any negotiations with them, and committing to fight to the last drop of blood, wealth, honor, and life to ensure their defeat. Hezbollah’s soldiers and their families repeatedly endured displacement, isolation, and martyrdom for this belief, yet each time they returned stronger than before, humiliating Satan even more profoundly. They deeply understood that to pave the way for the advent of the awaited Imam (May Allah hasten his advent), many sacrifices of blood and perseverance through numerous trials were necessary to emerge victorious. Only through such sacrifices could the conditions for establishing a new global civilization under the leadership of a divinely guided and infallible Imam be fulfilled.

The challenge lies in the fact that some superficial thinkers view these events as regional conflicts and label them with nationalistic tags, ignoring their profound global significance. These seemingly local and regional wars, in truth, have universal and all-encompassing implications. Both sides of this conflict are reenacting the history of humanity’s struggle, from creation to the present day. This battle is reaching its final moments, and soon the Resistance Front will usher in their Imam onto the earth.

In reality, there are only two forces in existence: the camp of monotheism and the camp of Satan. The Party of God must engage wholeheartedly—spiritually, militarily, and culturally—to weaken the Party of Satan. This will pave the way for the emergence of the Promised Savior, who will completely eradicate Satan and his followers from the earth, establishing divine and human education under the guidance of the infallible Imam.

Hezbollah are the devoted warriors of human salvation, who have entered the field with everything they have so that all humanity may return to their Imam and be freed from the hell of both this world and the hereafter. The Party of Allah manifested this belief and conviction profoundly in their defeat of Israel in Lebanon.

Conclusion

The 33-day war between Israel and Hezbollah fundamentally altered the landscape of Middle Eastern politics. Israel’s withdrawal, considered the significant defeat of Israel in Lebanon, challenged the long-held belief in its military invincibility. The conflict underscored the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare, as Hezbollah utilized guerrilla tactics and local support to counter a technologically superior adversary. The aftermath of the war saw a shift in regional power dynamics, with Hezbollah emerging as a symbol of resistance against Israeli aggression. This conflict not only reshaped Lebanon’s political landscape but also influenced the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, highlighting the importance of understanding local contexts in international relations. The lessons learned from this war continue to resonate, emphasizing the complexities of power, identity, and resistance in the ongoing struggles within the region.

Reference

[1] Matoi, Ecaterina. “Greater Israel: an Ongoing Expansion Plan for the Middle East and North Africa.” Middle east political and economic institute.

[2] Sweidan, Mohamad Hasan. “Lessons from Syria, Lebanon: Resistance is the only guarantor of sovereignty.” The Cradle, 2024.

[3] Asem, Sondos. “Unifil attacks and Resolution 1701: Has Israel violated international law?” Middle East Eye, 2024.

[4] Imam Khamenei’s Speech to Thousands of People from East Azerbaijan Address February 17, 2008.