We will remain in these security zones to protect our country
In the aftermath of a joint US-Israel military campaign against Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu stood before his nation and declared victory — yet the preliminary agreement between Washington and Tehran, negotiated without Israeli participation, has unsettled the very ground on which that claim rests. The accord, which includes a ceasefire in Lebanon where Israeli forces have fought for fifteen weeks, has drawn fierce criticism from across Israel's political spectrum, with opponents arguing that military gains have been traded away for concessions to Tehran. Netanyahu now navigates the ancient tension between the leader who must answer to an ally and the leader who must answer to his people, with elections approaching and the distance between triumph and defeat measured in interpretation.
- A ceasefire Netanyahu did not negotiate and did not want has forced him to publicly defend terms his own coalition members are openly rejecting.
- Israeli drone strikes and Hezbollah attacks continued on the very day the ceasefire was announced, exposing the agreement as fragile and the peace as largely theoretical.
- Opposition leaders — including a former prime minister positioning himself as a rival — are framing the deal as proof that Netanyahu delivers stagnation, not decisive victory.
- Netanyahu's dependence on Washington constrains his options: Trump has already rebuked him publicly, and breaking with the United States entirely would cost Israel the military and diplomatic support it cannot afford to lose.
- With October elections looming, Netanyahu has announced he will run, but analysts warn that any forced withdrawal from Lebanon could prove politically fatal, repudiating the central lesson he has built his leadership upon since October 7.
Benjamin Netanyahu stood before cameras on a Monday and declared that the joint military campaign with the United States had saved Israel from nuclear catastrophe. The message was victory. But the preliminary agreement between Washington and Tehran — reached without Israel at the table — had already landed like a shock across the country, and Netanyahu was left explaining why a complete victory required accepting terms that much of Israel's political establishment read as defeat.
The accord included a ceasefire in Lebanon, where Israeli forces had been fighting for fifteen weeks. Netanyahu's response was to reframe the conflict: Israel had established deep security zones in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, and those zones would remain under Israeli control indefinitely. Withdrawal, he insisted, was not happening.
The political damage was nonetheless visible. Israeli newspapers called the deal an abject failure. Yair Golan accused Netanyahu of allowing military achievements to be erased while billions flowed to Tehran. Naftali Bennett, a former prime minister and likely electoral rival, said Netanyahu had led Israel into wars of stagnation. Even far-right coalition members rejected the agreement outright, with national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir declaring on Telegram that Israel was not bound by a deal it had not negotiated.
On the ground, the ceasefire was more theoretical than real. An Israeli drone strike killed one person in southern Lebanon on the day Netanyahu spoke; Hezbollah responded by attacking an Israeli military unit in the same area. The arrangement's fragility was plain.
Netanyahu's deeper problem was structural. He depended on Washington for military support and diplomatic cover, yet Trump had already rebuked him with expletive-laden criticism over an Israeli strike on Beirut the day before the ceasefire announcement. He could not break with the United States, even as domestic critics demanded he reject the deal.
With elections approaching, the stakes were enormous. Military historian Danny Orbach suggested that if Trump forced an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, Netanyahu's political career would be finished — retreat would seem to repudiate the central lesson of October 7. Yet electoral analyst Dahlia Scheindlin offered a counterpoint: many of Netanyahu's supporters might absorb the unfavorable terms as a minor setback within a longer record of accomplishment. What remained certain was that Netanyahu had claimed victory while accepting terms that looked, to much of Israel, like something else entirely.
Benjamin Netanyahu stood before cameras on a Monday afternoon and declared victory. The joint military campaign with the United States against Iran had, in his telling, saved Israel from annihilation. Millions of citizens had been spared from what he called nuclear catastrophe. The message was clear: Israel had won. Yet even as he spoke those words, the ground beneath his political feet was shifting.
The preliminary agreement between Washington and Tehran—hammered out without Israel at the negotiating table—had landed like a shock across the country. Netanyahu was forced to explain why, if victory was so complete, the deal appeared to concede so much. The accord included a ceasefire in Lebanon, where Israeli forces had been fighting for fifteen weeks following Hezbollah attacks on Israel's north. Israel had wanted to keep fighting. The United States and Iran had other ideas.
Netanyahu's response was to reframe the entire conflict. Israel had established what he called deep security zones in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. These zones would remain under Israeli control indefinitely. "We will remain in these security zones," he said, "to protect our country." The message to his domestic audience was unmistakable: withdrawal was not happening. The military campaign might be pausing, but the occupation would continue.
Yet the political damage was already visible. Israeli newspapers ran headlines calling the deal an "abject failure." Opposition politicians seized on the moment. Yair Golan, leader of the centre-left Democrats party, accused Netanyahu of allowing military achievements to be erased by a deal that funneled billions to Tehran while leaving Iran's nuclear infrastructure and ballistic missiles intact. Naftali Bennett, a former prime minister and likely rival in elections scheduled before October, said Netanyahu was incapable of delivering decisive victory and had instead led Israel into wars of stagnation and attrition. Even members of Netanyahu's own far-right coalition government rejected the agreement outright. Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, declared on Telegram that Israel was not bound by a deal it had not negotiated.
The reality on the ground remained volatile. On the day Netanyahu spoke, an Israeli drone strike killed one person in the southern Lebanese town of Kfar Tebnit. Hezbollah responded by attacking an Israeli military unit in the same area. The ceasefire, in other words, was more theoretical than actual. Hezbollah had welcomed the agreement, framing it as a comprehensive ceasefire that included Lebanon. But the group's commitment was conditional: it would hold only if Israel held. Israeli military sources told the Jerusalem Post that if Hezbollah respected the ceasefire, Israeli forces would not attack anywhere in Lebanon. The fragility of the arrangement was evident.
Netanyahu faced a political calculation that transcended the immediate military situation. He depended on the United States for military support, diplomatic backing, and economic assistance. Trump, the American president who had encouraged the war against Iran, had already rebuked Netanyahu with expletive-laden criticism over an Israeli strike on Beirut the day before the ceasefire announcement. Analysts noted that the relationship between the two leaders had taken a hit, and broader Israeli-American ties were under strain. Netanyahu could not afford to break with Washington entirely, even as his domestic critics demanded he reject the deal.
The political stakes were enormous. An election loomed. Netanyahu announced he would run and intended to win. But the terrain had shifted. Danny Orbach, a military historian at Hebrew University, suggested that if Trump forced Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, Netanyahu's political career would be finished. Withdrawing from the border would repudiate the central lesson of October 7, 2023—the surprise Hamas attack that had triggered this entire cascade of conflicts. That attack had killed Israelis and led to an Israeli response in Gaza that had killed close to one thousand Palestinians since a ceasefire arranged by Trump the previous year. Israel now occupied more than sixty percent of Gaza and had seized swathes of territory in Syria. To retreat from Lebanon would seem to contradict everything Netanyahu had built his case upon.
Yet electoral analyst Dahlia Scheindlin suggested the ceasefire might prove less damaging to Netanyahu than it appeared. Many of his supporters, she said, would view the unfavorable terms of the Iran deal as merely a blip in a longer list of accomplishments. Whether that assessment would hold as the election approached remained uncertain. What was clear was that Netanyahu had claimed victory while accepting terms that looked, to much of Israel's political establishment, like defeat.
Citações Notáveis
We established deep security zones around the state of Israel. We did this in Gaza, in Lebanon and in Syria. And I want to make it clear: we will remain in these security zones to protect our country.— Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu allowed military achievements won through the courage of Israel's armed forces to be erased by a deal that funnels billions to the ayatollahs' regime and leaves the nuclear infrastructure intact.— Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats party
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did Netanyahu declare victory if the deal looks so much like a loss to Israeli opposition parties?
Because he needed to control the narrative. He'd pushed Trump into this war, and now the ceasefire came without Israel getting what it wanted. Calling it a victory—framing it around preventing Iranian nuclear weapons—let him claim success while accepting terms he couldn't refuse.
But he's staying in Lebanon indefinitely. Isn't that a win?
It's a holding pattern dressed as victory. He gets to keep forces there, but the ceasefire constrains what he can do with them. And politically, it looks like he's defying the Americans while actually being forced to accept their deal. That's a precarious position.
What about the election coming in October?
That's everything. He needs to show strength to his base, especially the far-right members of his coalition who are already rejecting the deal. But he also can't alienate Trump, who controls the military aid Israel depends on. He's caught between two audiences with incompatible demands.
Do you think his supporters will actually abandon him over this?
Probably not enough to cost him the election. Scheindlin, the analyst, thinks many will see this as one setback in a longer list of what they view as his accomplishments. The real danger is if Trump forces a full withdrawal from Lebanon. That would be harder to spin.
Why does Lebanon matter so much politically?
Because of October 7. That attack happened partly because Israel had withdrawn from southern Lebanon years earlier. Retreating again would look like the same mistake twice. Netanyahu's entire political survival depends on convincing Israelis that he learned that lesson and won't repeat it.
So he's trapped by his own logic?
Exactly. He built his case on the idea that Israel must maintain military presence on its borders to prevent future attacks. Now he's forced to accept a ceasefire that limits what he can do in Lebanon, but he can't withdraw without destroying his political credibility. He's claiming victory while being constrained in ways that feel like defeat.