After the huge bombing of Lebanon, Israel launched a land invasion of its northern neighbor. Soldiers entered southern Lebanon in an try to push Hezbollah back across the Litani River, 29 kilometers from the border with Israel. The specific purpose is meant to facilitate the return of roughly 60,000 displaced Israelis to their homes in northern Israel.
By killing Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah and several other of his commanders over the weekend, Israel has already dealt a serious blow to the group.
This strengthened the position of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regardless that most Israelis wanted him gone.
Israel is now able to repeat its operations in Gaza, Lebanon, with the goal of reordering the Middle East in its own interest. But has he bitten off greater than he can chew?
Balance sheet failed
Israel has been here before.
He invaded Lebanon all of the approach to the capital Beirut in 1982attempting to eliminate the Palestine Liberation Organization. It tried to suppress Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, which had existed since 1967. Israeli-Arab war.
1982 was also the yr of the creation of Hezbollah with the assistance of the recently established Islamic government in Iran.
Israel authorized its Lebanese Christian allies to accomplish that massacre tons of Palestinians within the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut. It also forced the Palestine Liberation Organization to maneuver its headquarters from Beirut to Tunisia.
LEWI PITARAKIS/AP
Israel then established a security zone north of its border but faced stiff resistance from Hezbollah. As Israeli losses mounted, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak made a decision unilateral withdrawal in 2000.
The withdrawal strengthened Hezbollah’s popularity and strength as a powerful political and paramilitary force against Israel and its allies.
Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006 in an try to destroy Hezbollah. It failed to realize its goal. After 34 days of bloody fighting and significant costs for each side, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on a cease-fireand Hezbollah won.
A defiant war
Netanyahu is confident that he’ll succeed this time. He also has the support of his extremist ministers, especially the ministers of national security, finance and defense. He depends upon their support to survive in domestic politics.
Israel has more firepower than ever before. It showed this through the Gaza War, taking revenge for Hamas’ killing of over 1,000 Israelis and the kidnapping of roughly 240 Israeli and other residents October 7.
In scorched earth operations, the Israel Defense Forces razed swathes of the Gaza Strip and killed greater than 40,000 civilians – 35% of them children – and two million more were repeatedly displaced.
In this way, Netanyahu’s leaders ignored the norms of war, international humanitarian law, and the UN Security Council resolution for a ceasefire and a warning to the International Court of Justice against genocidal activities.
Moreover, he overtly rejected widespread condemnation of Israel’s actions around the globe.
His defiant stance is reinforced by Israel’s ironclad military, financial and economic support. Washington has just approved a further $8.7 billion (roughly A$12.5 billion) aid package to support Israel’s campaign in Lebanon.
Netanyahu had no compelling reason to be sympathetic to Washington’s calls for restraint or a ceasefire.
Will it be different this time?
Netanyahu’s confidence is further strengthened by Israel’s nuclear capabilities. Although Israel has not declared it, it is reported to have it many nuclear weapons regional deterrence and military supremacy within the region.
Netanyahu and his supporters claim that their use of disproportionate force is justified in self-defense against the so-called terrorist tentacles (Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah) Iranian octopus. With the United States and several other of its Western and regional Arab allies sharing its position, Israel is once more specializing in the unfinished business of rooting out Hezbollah.
SARAH YENESEL/EPA
Hezbollah is a key element of Iran’s “axis of resistance” against Israel and the US. Netanyahu knows that the destruction of this group will mean parting Iran’s national and regional security system. He doesn’t hesitate to risk a direct confrontation with Iran, while being assured of full US support in such a case.
Tehran cannot be expected to desert Hezbollah, but it also has other priorities in domestic and foreign policy. Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, took power promising to cut back theocratic political and social restrictions and improve the living conditions of most Iranians.
Pezeshkian can be committed to improving Iran’s regional and diplomacy, including reopening negotiations with the West (particularly the US) on nuclear programto finish the sanctions imposed by the US.
Pezeshkian appears to have the support of powerful Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has shown a willingness to be pragmatic when obligatory. His foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, stated that Hezbollah was capable of doing so defending himself.
For now, Tehran’s approach is as on previous occasions, to let Israel remain trapped in Lebanon.
Hezbollah will not be Hamas: it is broken, but still quite well armed and strategically placed. The group will be in a position to offer limitless resistance to the Israeli occupation. This could come at a high human and material cost to the Jewish state, which could also prevent many Israelis from returning home to northern Israel.
At this stage it is significant to recollect two points.
First, after a yr of disastrous campaign, Israel has still not managed to completely suppress Hamas resistance. The task of confronting Hezbollah in a ground war may prove way more difficult and dangerous.
Second, like Netanyahu, former US President George W. Bush sought to structure the Middle East according to US geopolitical preferences. He intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq under the guise of war on terrorism and promoting democracy.
However, America’s actions further destabilized the region.
Since World War II, the use of brute force has rarely served as a viable substitute for diplomacy in managing world problems.