It is not yet certain that a ground invasion of Lebanon will follow Israel’s intense attacks on Hezbollah. But the signs increasingly point that way. The swift Israeli dismissals of the US and French-led call for a temporary ceasefire followed the mobilisation of Israel Defense Forces brigades to the northern border and the chief of staff’s announcement of a possible ground operation.
Many in Israel have long believed that such an assault is inevitable at some point if citizens in the north are to live safely, given Hezbollah’s entrenchment in, and attacks from, the south of Lebanon. They see it as more necessary than ever after the Hamas attack of 7 October in southern Israel. Air and other remote assaults, however devastating, will not be enough to eradicate the threat from fighters. Hezbollah is vulnerable after the killings of so many senior figures, the loss of confidence resulting from Israeli intelligence penetration, and attacks upon its weapons stores. A delay may allow it to regroup.
Yet an invasion may well bring the deaths or flight of more Israelis, not the return of those already displaced. Israeli soldiers paid for the lengthy occupation of Lebanon that ended in 2000, though Lebanon paid much more dearly. In the 2006 war, 165 Israelis and more than 1,000 Lebanese people died; half a million Israelis and a million Lebanese people were displaced. The conflict ended with UN security council resolution 1701, though it was never fully implemented. That resolution still offers a way out, and all parties should embrace it. Hezbollah now has a reason to pull back north of the Litani River, as previously agreed; it should act upon it, and can claim to do so for Lebanon’s people. The Israeli government could take the credit and halt its intensive strikes. A beefed up Unifil peacekeeping force could monitor compliance. The US envoy Amos Hochstein has promoted such a plan for months.
Hezbollah has said it will only back down if there is a ceasefire and hostages deal in Gaza. The US should tell Israel that military aid is conditional upon such an agreement. That’s unlikely with an election in November. But the alternative path leads towards further devastation for a nation already on its knees. As António Guterres, the UN secretary general, warned in New York: “Hell is breaking loose”.
History has shown Israel the cost of ground operations in Lebanon. Getting in will be the easy bit – getting out will be the challenge. Why would this time be different? In causing unprecedented damage to Hezbollah, it has also ensured that the group will feel compelled to re-establish deterrence and that at least some parts feel they must hit back while they still can. Hezbollah publicly regretted the 2006 cross-border kidnappings that prompted the Israeli invasion and has calibrated its responses this time – clearly Iran’s preference. That may not hold. Israel’s extreme-right government, led by a prime minister whose political survival is tied to ongoing conflict, doesn’t seem to care.
This time both sides are vastly better equipped; Hezbollah has been described as the world’s most heavily armed non-state actor. Despite the damage that it and Hamas have sustained, Iran’s “axis of resistance” has in some ways been extended and hardened by the events of the past year. That is another reason why all-out war may not be containable in Lebanon; and why it should be unthinkable.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
