While Hizballah was not a party to the Gaza ceasefire, it announced that it would abide by it, and so it did. When the truce ended on Friday, Hizballah too resumed its attacks on northern Israel. The IDF reportedly conducted airstrikes near Damascus the next day, killing two high-ranking Iranian officers. On Sunday Hizballah fired an anti-tank missile at the town of Beit Hillel, injuring twelve, prompting further Israeli airstrikes.

Yossi Mansharof tries to make sense of Hizballah’s intentions, and those of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

Hizballah’s conduct reflects an attempt to “walk a tightrope.” It conducts relatively limited attacks in the north, restricting rocket strikes up to the Safed–Mount Meron area and enabling Hamas to strike the sensitive area of Haifa Bay. Recently, it has expanded its arsenal in the conflict to include explosive-laden drones and short-range, heavy-warhead Burkan missiles. Hizballah also enables Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to conduct infiltration attacks and missile launches against the northern region of Israel. Hizballah is aware of the psychological impact of Israel evacuating communities from the north, which, until now, has been limited in scope. The group appears to be attempting to compel Israel to expand these evacuations, thereby maximizing its achievements.

Outside of Israel, the Mossad thwarted a terror attack against Israeli and Jewish targets in Brazil. For this task, Nasrallah most likely dispatched Talal Hamiyah, the head of Unit 910 (responsible for Hizballah’s overseas attacks), to carry out this terrorist plot. It can be assumed that Hamiyah received assistance from Hizballah’s extensive infrastructure in Brazil, given the presence of a sizable Lebanese Shiite community there. Nasrallah likely believed that Hizballah could commit terror plots in that region without leaving a trace.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.