The borders between the north of occupied Palestine and the southern Lebanese region have recently witnessed a series of exchanged fire between the Israeli occupation and the Lebanese resistance. This escalation began in the past week after three rockets had been fired from south Lebanon to the north of occupied Palestine without casualties. The occupation retaliated with several air raids and artillery shelling on open lands and Hezbollah's barracks in south Lebanon.

The occupation's repeated attacks were meant to send a message of deterrence to the Lebanese resistance, threatening a fierce response to any resistant act from Lebanon. The aim is to give a more serious and rigorous impression of the new Israeli government headed by Naftali Bennett, compared with Netanyahu's government.  

The Lebanese resistance found the new Israeli approach as an attempt to impose new aggressive policies to terrorize the Lebanese, especially the resistance, and deliver a tough message to the regional entities supporting the Lebanese resistance including Iran and the Syrian regime. This escalation incited Hezbollah to respond with 19 rockets on regions surrounding occupational settlements and military sites.

Insight of the Situation

• The recent escalation at the borders between Lebanon and the occupation reflects the true grudge between the two parties. This round may be each party's attempt to explore the military and spiritual status of the other.
• Hezbollah's rocket-firing is a natural outcome of the current escalation between their Iranian ally and Israel. This escalation, thus, has its regional and ideological implications.
• The occupation has proved, once again, their intelligence failure and their inability to predict its enemy's intents and plans. The occupation expected the Lebanese resistance to give in to the exaggerated Israeli response, but the resistance's behavior was firm and challenging.
• The timing of this flare-up is critical to the occupation at the political, military and regional levels. It is also critical to the Lebanese front, which witnesses social and political division.
• The difficult conditions through which both parties are going indicate that this is not a good time for confrontation, especially for the occupation whose weaknesses will be exposed upon any sort of confrontation. This was recently proved by the last attack against Gaza, whose military capabilities are only modest compared with those of the Lebanese resistance.

Possible Scenarios:

1. Ending this escalation episode, with both parties settling for the exchanged fire messages in the past few days. The confrontation is, then, put off until the political, military and social conditions of the two parties, especially the occupation, permits it. This scenario is supported by both parties' prudent behavior during this episode and explicit expression of their desire to stop the escalation.

2. Resuming the clashes in a manner that leads to comprehensive confrontation under the proxy-war adopted by Iran in the region and amid the current escalation in the Arab Gulf region, as Iran has targeted Israeli ships and the Israelis threatened to punish Iran. This scenario is supported by the role played by Hezbollah in service of Iran; its ideological and intellectual guardian. The scenario is also backed by Iran's desire to create confusion amid the increased international threat campaign launched against it.

In general, all scenarios are possible, but the former is more likely, because neither party is ready for escalation. In addition, Bennett seems cautious about drawing his new government to confrontations against the resistance in Gaza or Lebanon at this time, fearing to gamble his political future for an attempt that is doomed to failure.