Ceasefire? That’s so last week!

Two days ago my family (and many others) benefitted from the Houthi 'alarm clock.' At 6:22 AM, the sirens went off due to an incoming ballistic missile. This includes not just neighborhood sirens, but every phone in the house. Within about 20 seconds, we were all fully awake and in the shelter. My youngest, a 7-year-old girl, lifted up her head (she and her 10-year-old brother sleep in the shelter) and said — with a mixture of fear and disappointment: "But I thought there was a ceasefire..."

That missile was a Houthi special delivery. Two days ago, the ceasefire with Hezbollah in Lebanon (not Hezbollah in Iraq, which never stopped firing) appeared to be holding. Today, a mere two days later, it appears to be over. Part of the post-ceasefire process will be the assignment of blame. Who broke the ceasefire? France and then the US have claimed Israel violated the ceasefire. Israel has claimed that the ceasefire was not a mere ceasing of fire but an agreement that Hezbollah would move north as per the internationally imposed 2006 ceasefire - which didn't happen in 2006 and hasn't happened here. So, who is right?

In my cold, cynical, regionally-trained perspective, it is quite likely Israel has chosen to violate the ceasefire (with some cause - Hezbollah is still in the south of Lebanon and never intended to leave). The reasoning for this opinion is simple: in the past week, two new and effective anti-Hezbollah fronts have opened up in Syria. The first is the HTS attacks on Hezbollah in Syria's west. The second is the US attacks on Hezbollah in Syria's east. Hezbollah can't handle a three-front war — and so Israel wants to give them one. Hezbollah's newfound weakness was on bold display when, apparently, Assad asked Israel for help (and promised to kick Iran out).

The reality was that Hezbollah was being squished in its contest with Israel. The ceasefire terms were tantamount to an unadmitted surrender (Hezbollah didn't 'sign'). The two additional fronts created an unprecedented opportunity to remove Hezbollah from the region. The US should be encouraging the ceasefire violation — it will make support of the Kurdish SDF in Syria much easier.

In the broader Syria discussion, Memri published this excellent piece on who HTS and SNA are. I'll boil it down for you:

• The Syrian National Army (SNA) is a Turkish front group primarily interested in claiming Ottoman territory and going after Kurds.
• HTS (I won't bother with the full Arabic name) is a Qatar-backed ISIS spinoff with a much friendlier and pragmatic face and is primarily interested in going after Assad.

That friendly face will be absolutely critical to HTS victory. If they can convince Alawites and Shia that they don't intend to slaughter them all, then non-Kurdish resistance will crumble. People really don't like Assad, but they are somewhat protected by him. If they don't think they need the protection, then Assad's army will effectively go 'poof.' While there are reports of Yazidi being shot on sight, Kurdish civilians being bombed and female Kurdish fighters being "captured," this is likely SNA and not HTS action. HTS has its eye on the prize: Assad's regime. Anything they do that makes them seem more threatening to minorities will make that war much harder. This is one reason why they have, by and large, done nothing to Aleppo's remaining Christians while highlighting Russian and regime bombings of churches. In fact, things may actually have gotten better for religious minorities (at least for now).

This divergence in messaging might lead to an early SNA/HTS split (there have already been reports of HTS arresting SNA fighters for looting and other activities). Another reason this might happen is Jolani's history; he's happy to diverge from those allies who don't line up with his path and process. That same history should give serious pause to Christians whose early days under the new regime seem good.

In this conflict, American and Israeli interests are both with the Kurds in this one. HTS is a wildcard and, unlike ISIS and Al Qaeda, they have the potential to be a disciplined and effective fighting force. HTS on Israel's border — or threatening the US-backed SDF — would be even more of a problem than Assad. Jolani's nom de guerre gives a hint of this. It is Golani — as in, it declares that he is from the Golan Heights (not that Israel should support the Assad family: a drug-dealing, mass murdering, multi-generational enemy of Israel).

Given the threat HTS represents — and the threat to HTS that Hezbollah represents — it is in Lebanon's interest that the ceasefire fail. They need Hezbollah gone (not just damaged) in order to raise the likelihood that HTS will leave them alone. HTS is pretty likely to be Syria-focused.

Is there long-term hope? I think so. The Kurdish, Israeli and UAE examples all show that civil societies can develop in this region. There will be resistance from Islamist Shia and Sunni forces but maybe, just maybe, others can learn from these examples and better realize the limits of their fundamentalist neighbors.

My older four kids will all be entering the IDF in the next few years. Due to the present reality, our boys will likely be combat veterans shortly after they finish their training*. But I sure would like to hold onto the dream that the 7-year-old and her 10-year-old brother won't have to enlist at all.

* the girls can opt out of combat and my eldest girl is likely to go into intelligence while her sister is expecting to choose border patrol.