Attacks and rhetoric: Israel and Hezbollah could plunge Lebanon into war | News on the Israel-Palestine conflict

A threat by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to attack Cyprus has further increased tensions in the eastern Mediterranean, as the Lebanese Shiite group’s conflict with Israel continues to threaten to escalate into open war.

Nasrallah said on Wednesday that Hezbollah does not want an expanded war, but is ready – together with its regional allies – to confront Israel’s increasing aggression. The threat to Cyprus is a consequence of Israel’s use of bases on the eastern Mediterranean island, Nasrallah said.

“The Cypriot government must be warned: opening Cypriot airports and bases to the Israeli enemy to attack Lebanon means that the Cypriot government has become part of the war and the resistance (Hezbollah) will treat it as part of the war,” Nasrallah said.

Although the United Kingdom maintains two bases in Cyprus, there is no officially recognised Israeli use of Cypriot soil or air bases. Israel has used Cypriot airspace for exercises in the past.

Nasrallah’s escalating rhetoric comes a day after Hezbollah released footage it said was taken by one of its drones over the Israeli city of Haifa. The footage, which Nasrallah said shows only a small portion of the footage captured, appears to be a warning to Israeli authorities about Hezbollah’s sphere of influence if Israel continues to threaten to expand its attacks on Lebanon.

Israel said on Tuesday that operational plans for a military offensive in its northern neighbor had been “approved and confirmed.” Since hostilities with Hezbollah began on October 8, one day after the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza broke out, more than 90,000 Israelis have fled their homes in the north of the country. At least 90,000 people have also fled their homes in southern Lebanon due to Israeli attacks.

“No red lines crossed”

Israel has assassinated several Hezbollah commanders, most recently Taleb Abdallah, a senior commander killed last week. Hezbollah responded to the attack by launching more than 200 rockets – the most it has fired at Israel in a single day since October. Since then, Israel has continued its airstrikes on southern Lebanon, including on the city of Tyr.

But despite all this and despite the rhetoric from both sides, observers believe that both sides are still largely adhering to the rules of engagement and that escalations are only occurring gradually.

“The intensity of hostilities has increased, but not their nature,” said Eyal Lurie-Pardes of the Middle East Institute. “No red line has been crossed. A rocket attack on Haifa, for example, would be a sign of greater fighting power and would therefore be almost a red line (for Israel).”

“Hezbollah has said it will stop with a ceasefire in Gaza. Israel only has to deal with the displaced in the north. Both are just one miscalculation away from conflict.”

Diplomatic efforts continue. US envoy Amos Hochstein, who previously helped broker a maritime agreement between Lebanon and Israel, was recently in Beirut to try to ease tensions along the border that could involve other regional players.

“(Hochstein’s) mission is constrained by the need for a comprehensive agreement that includes both Hamas and Hezbollah,” said Imad Salamey, a political scientist at the Lebanese American University. “This need has not been fully recognized or considered by either the American or Israeli side, limiting the effectiveness of Hochstein’s efforts to achieve lasting peace and stability.”

Fear in Lebanon

Even though an open conflict between Hezbollah and Israel can still be avoided, concern is growing among many Lebanese.

“There is growing concern and fear in Lebanon about the possible outbreak of a full-scale war,” Salamey said. “The Israeli military’s approval of a war plan is being taken very seriously by the Lebanese people, leading to heightened fears of escalation. This approval has significantly affected plans for tourism and investment in the country, as potential visitors and investors reconsider their decisions due to the increased risk of conflict.”

Lebanon has experienced one of the worst economic crises of the century and has been stuck in a political impasse without a president since October 2022. The country lacked political and economic stability even before the war. The infrastructure is overstretched and an expansion of the war could have devastating effects on the already crisis-ridden country.

“Lebanon is unable to respond effectively to an Israeli invasion or a major air war against its infrastructure,” Salamey said. “Any significant escalation of the conflict would have devastating consequences, as the destroyed infrastructure would be difficult to repair or replace. The Lebanese government lacks the funds for reconstruction and there are few international donors willing to provide the necessary support, unlike after the 2006 war.”

A further disintegration of the Lebanese state could also have serious implications for the region, Salamey said, adding that it “could exacerbate existing political and social tensions in Lebanon and make recovery even more difficult.”

“The destruction of Lebanon would lead to chaos and armed groups would invade its territory. This would create an even more unstable situation (also for the Israelis),” he said.

Israelis want answers

However, if Israel decides to continue to cooperate with Lebanon, its military and civilian infrastructure could also suffer serious damage. Hezbollah is significantly stronger and better equipped than Hamas and has recently introduced new weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles that have driven Israeli military aircraft out of Lebanese airspace for the first time.

“What is particularly worrying and significant is that the Israelis seem to have learned absolutely nothing from their experience in Lebanon,” Karim Emile Bitar, a professor of international relations at Saint Joseph’s University in Beirut, told Al Jazeera. “Their announcement yesterday that they are about to wage an all-out war that would destroy Hezbollah is extraordinarily naive at best and amateurish at worst.”

“Hezbollah could inflict serious, significant and even unprecedented damage on Israel,” he added.

Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 and laid siege to West Beirut to oust Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It occupied southern Lebanon from 1985 to 2000.

While Israel’s military apparatus appears to be aware of Hezbollah’s capabilities, many in Israel, including far-right ministers such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, are pushing for military rather than diplomatic solutions. Smotrich in particular has even floated the idea of ​​reoccupying southern Lebanon, although Lurie-Pardes said that “only the extreme right/radical fringe… would want to conquer Lebanon.”

There is a widespread belief that Israel needs a ceasefire in Gaza to focus its full attention on Lebanon, but Lurie-Pardes said that acting on two fronts is entirely possible.

“Israel can handle another front,” he said. “The human and financial costs would be immense, but they could do it.”

Inside Israel, political pressure is mounting on politicians as the school year approaches and residents in the north want to return home. On the Israeli side of the border, there is a growing sense that they cannot live in safety as long as Hezbollah operates nearby.

“The population wants both,” said Lurie-Pardes. “They want to feel safe in the north and they want a military action that makes that possible.”

“People want an answer to this question. But they also understand that Hezbollah is more powerful than Hamas and has more sophisticated weapons.”

What is clear is that a protracted war will produce few winners. Israel has struggled to achieve its stated goal of wiping out Hamas over the past eight months, and Hezbollah has far more capabilities than the Palestinian group. And while Israel could inflict serious damage on Lebanon, it could also lead to unforeseen long-term effects, as has happened in the past.

“In 1982, the Israelis wanted to abolish the PLO, and they succeeded. But this led to the birth of Hezbollah – a movement that was much more radical and better organized than Fatah,” said Bitar. “The same scenario could repeat itself at any time.”