![Israel must continue to be able to deter Hezbollah, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar stressed on Wednesday, speaking amid efforts to reach a ceasefire with Iran's Lebanese terrorist proxy. "We need to keep the freedom to act if there will be violations. And we will have to act in time, before the problem will grow," the minister told a gathering of nearly 100 foreign ambassadors in Jerusalem, the Times of Israel reported. A deal to end more than a year of fighting on the northern border must be durable, Sa'ar said, saying Jerusalem “would like to reach an agreement that will stand the test of time." He added that a ceasefire would be an "opportunity" for Lebanon to regain its sovereignty after the Israeli military severely degraded the Iranian-backed group in recent months. He called for the Lebanese Armed Forces to be strengthened and urged the international community to invest more in the economically devastated country, which is drowning in debt following years of mismanagement and corruption. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz also emphasized on Wednesday the necessity for Jerusalem to be able to act against any Hezbollah threats that may arise after a ceasefire deal is implemented. “The condition for any political settlement in Lebanon is the preservation of the intelligence capability and the preservation of the [IDF’s] right to act and protect the citizens of Israel from Hezbollah,” Katz said. Meanwhile, U.S. special envoy Amos Hochstein remained in Beirut for a second day on Wednesday to discuss "technical details" of an American ceasefire proposal with Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who heads the Hezbollah-allied Amal movement. President Joe Biden's point man in the Land of the Cedars announced he would travel to Israel on Wednesday night, speaking after he made "additional progress" in a second meeting with Berri. Hochstein was scheduled to meet with Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer shortly after his arrival, followed by a tête-à-tête with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the following day. “The meeting today built on the meeting yesterday, and made additional progress,” Hochstein said. “So I will travel from here in a couple hours to Israel to try to bring this to a close if we can.” The Biden envoy added that he will work with the incoming Trump administration on ceasefire efforts, saying that he has kept the president-elect's transition team informed of progress. Hochstein described as "very productive" his meetings with Lebanese officials on Tuesday. “We have a real opportunity to end the conflict, and now is the moment to decide. We are committed to doing everything we can to work with Lebanon and Israel to end this conflict,” Hochstein said at a press conference on Tuesday. Hochstein also met on Tuesday with Lebanese caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati, and he was scheduled to meet with Lebanese Armed Forces commander Gen. Joseph Aoun. Mikati emphasized that Lebanon’s primary objectives are achieving a ceasefire and safeguarding its sovereignty. He highlighted the need to implement international resolutions and bolster the Lebanese Armed Forces in the southern part of the country. Lebanon delivered its written response to the latest U.S. proposal on Monday. According to Ali Hassan Khalil, an aide to Berri, the response included “comments” that were “presented in a positive atmosphere.” He did not provide details on the nature of the comments, saying only that they “affirm the precise adherence to [U.N. Security Council] Resolution 1701 with all its provisions,” according to Reuters. Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem said in a speech on Wednesday that the terrorist group had "read the ceasefire proposal. "We have our comments, and Nabih Berri has comments, and ours and the Lebanese government's comments are, Inshallah ['God willing'], identical," Qassem said. "We have decided not to discuss these ceasefire proposals or our comments in the media. All I will say is that Israeli is trying to obtain through negotiations what it couldn't through war." The terrorist leader vowed to “continue our efforts on the ground, whether the negotiations succeed or not. “We are confronting a savage enemy, and we will remain on the ground, no matter the cost, as we will also increase the cost for the enemy. We are facing Israeli human monsters supported by American human monsters,” threatened Qassem. Disarm and retreat Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Second Lebanon War, stipulated that Hezbollah must disarm and retreat north of the Litani River, but was never enforced. The Litani lies some 20 miles from the Israel-Lebanon border. Its enforcement, along with Israeli freedom of operation in Lebanon should Hezbollah violate the terms of a ceasefire agreement, are the key sticking points in the current negotiations. Netanyahu emphasized during a speech in the Knesset plenum on Monday that Israel will not allow Hezbollah to “return to the state it was in on Oct. 6, 2023. “We will be required, in order to ensure our security in the north, to systematically carry out operations—not only against Hezbollah’s attacks, which could come. Even if there is a ceasefire, nobody can guarantee it will hold. So it’s not only our reaction, a preventive reaction, a reaction in the wake of attack but also the capacity to prevent Hezbollah from strengthening,” he said. Hezbollah has launched some 16,000 rockets, missiles and drones from Lebanon at Israel since joining the war in support of Hamas on Oct. 8, 2023, a day after the Gaza-based terrorist group’s massacre in southern Israel. More than 60,000 residents of northern Israel remain internally displaced due to the ongoing rocket and drone attacks from Lebanon. Seventy-six people in northern Israel have been killed by Hezbollah cross-border rocket, missile and drone attacks since the start of the war, including 31 soldiers and six foreign citizens, according to the latest data provided by the Prime Minister’s Office, updated on Sunday. In addition, 729 people have been wounded, including 497 civilians and 232 soldiers. Of these, 29 civilians and 37 soldiers were severely injured; 63 civilians and 38 soldiers were moderately injured and 405 civilians and 157 soldiers were lightly injured. Hezbollah’s leadership has been left in tatters following a series of targeted killings by Israel, including that of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut on Sept. 27. This was preceded by Israeli sabotage of Hezbollah communication devices that killed 39 people and wounded more than 3,400 members of the terrorist group. Israel has been waging a devastating aerial campaign against Hezbollah throughout Lebanon, including its stronghold of Dahieh south of Beirut. According to Israeli estimates, the terrorist group has lost most of its arsenal to the ongoing strikes. Then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said in late October that Hezbollah had lost an estimated 80%-plus of its long-range rockets since the start of the war. Israel also continues to battle Hamas terrorists in Gaza. The terrorist group still holds 101 hostages in the Strip, 97 of whom were kidnapped on Oct. 7. Many of the captives are believed to be dead. Brazil summit Meanwhile, G20 leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro for a summit put out a joint statement on Monday calling for “comprehensive” ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon. The leaders of the world’s biggest economies called for U.S. proposals to end fighting in Gaza and free the hostages, and one for Lebanon “that enables citizens to return safely to their homes on both sides of the Blue Line.” The 13-point U.S. proposal presented to Lebanese officials on Nov. 14 includes a 60-day truce, during which Lebanon would redeploy its troops along the border. The proposal also calls for Moscow to prevent Hezbollah from resupplying itself via Syrian land routes. Hezbollah would retreat north of the Litani River, with the border area then being under control of the Lebanese Armed Forces, overseen by the United States and Britain. Israeli officials are emphasizing, however, that the Israel Defense Forces must retain freedom of operation in Lebanon to thwart attempts by Hezbollah to violate the agreement and rearm and reestablish itself. A senior Israeli diplomatic official told Israel Hayom on Saturday that the IDF will retain operational freedom to respond to any security threats from across the northern border, regardless of any diplomatic arrangements. However, a source close to Hezbollah told The Washington Post that the group’s “condition for progress remains clear: Israel must be prohibited from conducting operations within Lebanese territory.” Berri emphasized at the time that any ceasefire agreement must not include the ability for Israel to attack by land, sea or air, Channel 12 reported. “Otherwise, what’s the purpose of an agreement?” he remarked. Another sticking point is Lebanon’s objection to the United Kingdom and Germany monitoring the implementation of U.N. Resolution 1701. Beirut reportedly favors the United States and France. If the ceasefire efforts fail, there are plans in the works to expand ground operations in Lebanon, an Israeli military official told the Post. Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer discussed the proposal with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump during a visit to his Florida estate earlier this month, as well as with senior Biden administration officials in Washington. Dermer also traveled to Russia to discuss the ceasefire proposal. Tehran is telling its Lebanese terrorist proxy Hezbollah that it supports ending the war against Israel, The New York Times reported over the weekend. Ali Larijani, senior adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, met with senior Lebanese officials in Beirut on Nov. 15 to discuss the matter. Two Iranians affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps told the Times that Larijani conveyed messages to Hezbollah from Khamenei that he supported the end of the war and that the regime would assist with rebuilding the terrorist group’s forces and recovering from the war.](https://jewishwebsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Gideon-Saar-1320x880-2-218x150.jpg "Sa’ar: Israel must be free to act against Hezbollah truce violations")
When Foreign Minister Yair Lapid recently floated his new two-stage plan for developing the Gaza Strip earlier this month, a clause in the plan sounded all too familiar to Asaf Ashar, an emeritus research professor at the National Ports and Waterways Institute USA with 40 years of worldwide experience in port planning.
According to Lapid’s plan, an artificial island would be created 4.5 kilometers off the Gazan shoreline, within the territorial waters of Gaza, and on it would be a new seaport linked to the Strip by a long bridge. The port would be under Israeli security control and used for imports and exports to boost Gaza’s failed economy.
“Where would security inspections be conducted? On the narrow bridge connecting the island to the shore? Who will conduct the inspection, Israelis based in Gaza? International inspectors? Who will inspect ships calling there, Israel’s Navy? Can Israeli navy ships operate in Gaza waters?” asked Ashar.
Ashar has been promoting the idea since 2016. He assembled a study team that includes Nachum Ganzarski, former president of the Israel Chamber of Shipping and vice president of Zim Integrated Shipping; Joseph Bassan, former CEO of the Port of Ashdod; Arie Gavish, a retired Israeli Navy captain, as well as the former CEO of the Port of Ashdod and the Superintendent of the Port of Haifa. His team also includes Ram Raviv, the president of a port engineering firm, and Pinhas Inbari, a senior analyst on Middle East affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Policy.
The team studied several alternative plans for a Gaza port. As part of its activities, the team met with Israel’s National Security Council, the IDF’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, the commander of Kerem Shalom, former IDF chiefs of staff, Israel’s National Port Authority and others.
Reactions so far have been mixed, said Ashar, with some responding positively, while others ruling out the idea due to the seemingly permanent impasse of the Israeli-Gazan relations and the extremist Islamist ideology of Hamas.
Ashar was told repeatedly that the port idea would have to be dealt with as part of a final peace plan, but he chose not to give up.
“My idea is to find a practical plan that does not depend on a comprehensive political agreement with Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Instead of starting at the top, let’s start at the bottom,” he said.
He insisted that any plan for a port must give priority to Israel’s ability to continue to inspect all incoming goods, particularly dual-use items that may appear innocuous, but which can and have been used for military-terrorist objectives, like chemicals for explosives and rocket fuel.
“This means that all checks are done by Israeli hands,” said Ashar. “International inspectors will not do the job for Israel. Previous experience with the European Union inspectors at Rafah Border Crossing proves this.
“Today, with some 1,000 trucks per day enter Gaza through Kerem Shalom, the border crossing terminal there is under constant aerial surveillance,” he continued, saying Israeli Defense Ministry inspectors “take apart all the trucks, ground all cargoes, open packages and thoroughly inspect their contents. The inspection is done in a series of large, open cells encircled with walls and security cameras. This cannot change.”
The Gaza port: An older story
Gaza has never had a commercial cargo port. Still, the idea of establishing a seaport there dates back decades.
For Palestinians, a port in Gaza is a key symbol and a critical engine for future economic development, said Ashar. However, with Hamas using every opportunity to smuggle materials for the production of rockets to threaten Israeli cities, the security issue is critical for Israel.
In the past, under a different reality, Israel repeatedly agreed and committed to supporting a Gaza port, such as in the 1993 Oslo Accord, the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, and the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access.
The Palestinian Authority even began constructing a port adjacent to Gaza City using European donations.
In the year 2000, when the P.A. was still ruling the Strip, Israel authorized the construction of such a port. French and Dutch port planners chose a site adjacent to Gaza City. The problem with the site: “To access it, one would have to bulldoze nearby neighborhoods, including parts of the Nuseirat Refugee Camp. Also, how do you store chemicals close to residential areas in light of the explosion in Beirut port?” asked Ashar. The project had an initial budget of $70 million, but it went nowhere, as the Second Intifada erupted three months later.
“The IDF sent three tanks to run over the buildings and equipment at the site, and that was the end of the port initiative,” he recalled.
Today, all shipments to Gaza, as well as the West Bank, arrive at Israeli ports, mostly the southern Port of Ashdod. Gaza-bound goods are trucked to Kerem Shalom Border Crossing, while those destined for the West Bank are sent to border crossings such as the Gilboa (Jalame) Crossing, which has been in recent headlines after being targeted by terrorist gunmen repeatedly.
The P.A.’s annual budget is heavily reliant on import taxes collected by Israel and transferred to the authority.
Gaza seaport: The other options
One idea that had been proposed in the past is to establish a dedicated Palestinian pier at Ashdod seaport for handling Gazan cargo.
“The problem is that trucks have to travel 90 kilometers from Ashdod to Kerem Shalom. Also, processing goods at Israeli ports results in double handling because trucks have to be handled again in Kerem Shalom. This makes it much more expensive for Gazan cargoes,” said Ashar.
“Then there is also the political issue; the Palestinians want their own port. The idea of a Gaza port is ultimately a political one, not an economic one. If we were not separate entities, there would be no need for it in light of the development of the two new ports in Haifa and Ashdod,” he added, referring to privately run ports built next to the two publicly operated seaports.
Another alternative is to construct a port at the northern border of the Strip on the Israeli side at Zikim beach and the nearby nature reserve area. But this site is small and environmentally sensitive, and there is no room to build an industrial zone next to a port, said Ashar.
In the past, Finance Minister and former Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman proposed the idea of a dedicated pier for Gaza at Cyprus’s Larnaca port, where Gazan cargo would be unloaded, inspected and loaded back onto smaller ships, sailing to Ashdod for inspection and then to the fishing port in Gaza City, which will be expanded. But “the fishing port is only 5 meters deep, sufficient for really small ships, and there is no room for storing and handling cargoes.
“The idea is a non-starter,” said Ashar.
South Gaza port and Kerem Shalom free-trade zone
According to Ashar’s plan, the Egyptian government would lease out a small coastline area in the northern Sinai adjacent to the Gaza border for the sea component (docks) of the port, connect it by road to the Kerem Shalom Crossing, where the land component (cargo storage) would be provided, turning it into a “dry” port.
The present inspection process would remain intact. The secured land corridor between the sea and land component would run along the Gazan-Egyptian border on the Egyptian side.
The new port would, according to the plan, be operated by the P.A., Hamas or a combination of the two.
According to Ashar, once the new port is established, Kerem Shalom could be expanded and transformed into a tri-state Gaza-Israel-Egypt foreign trade zone.
“Hamas already has a facility for handling goods on the Gazan side of Kerem Shalom. There is nothing stopping the setting up of a similar zone on the Egyptian side adjacent to Kerem Shalom. Altogether, the seaport and free-trade zone are intended to create jobs for both Gazans and Egyptians,” he stated.
Ashar envisioned the first facility to be built in the free-trade zone would be a refrigerated warehouse to enable Gazan farmers to export fresh produce via the new seaport.
“It seems that neither side should have reasons to oppose the south Gaza port plan,” he argued. “For Egypt, it will revive the northern Sinai. They only need to lease around two kilometers of uninhabited coastline.”
For Israel, it makes little difference whether the Gaza-bound cargo comes through Ashdod or a south Gaza port since cargo security inspections remain at Kerem Shalom, he added.
Egypt would be in charge of ensuring naval security. Although the port would be declared to be a Palestinian autonomous site, it would remain an Egyptian port for security-related purposes. For the Palestinians, while they would not get a fully sovereign port, said Ashar, “the autonomous port provides exactly the same port services.”
“The real beauty of this plan is that it can be implemented despite the current—and most likely, the future—political stalemate on core issues,” he added.