Israel-Lebanon conflict and chances of a full-scale war

The UN recently warned that a full-scale war between Israel and Lebanon is a daunting issue. With UN resolution 181, the creation of Israel as a state was put into place, and since then it has faced several resolutions, whether in favour or against, and continues to exist.

Israel’s formation has been unique in terms of its history; it has been facing wars since its inception. It has fought a series of wars, such as the War of Independence (1948), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six-Day War (1967), the Yom Kippur War (1973), and the Lebanon War (1982), then after the first and second intifadas. So war is not a new phenomenon for Israel.

Glimpse on the Israel-Lebanon conflict

The conflict between Israel and Lebanon is a long-standing conflict that has roots dating back to the inception of Israel. For instance, at the beginning of the War of Independence (1948), Lebanon created a problem for Israel. The Lebanese army supported the other Arab armies in this war. The problem escalated when the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was formed and recruited militants in Lebanon.

During 1971–72, the Fatah was expelled from Jordan, and they entered south Lebanon, leading to an increase in cross-border violence. Israel responded with an attack on Lebanon to push the PLO to the north of the Litani River (Norton, 2017). However, the PLO continued their campaign against Israel; therefore, Israel again invaded Lebanon in 1982.

Thereafter, on May 17, 1983, an agreement between Israel and Lebanon to stop cross-border attacks came into being. The focus of the agreement was normalising relations between the two states (Norton, 2017). The May 17 Agreement could not normalise relations due to the ongoing Lebanese civil war in 1984, where the Shia and Druze militias defeated the Lebanese army. Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon happened in 1985, which meant the end of Israel’s and the US’s influence on Lebanon. However, Israel’s control over the security buffer zone remained the same.

In the aftermath of 1985, the Lebanese Shia Islamist organisation known as Hezbollah came out to be the dominant non-state actor against Israel. This organisation was established as a result of the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon and was inspired by the Iranian revolution. “Hezbollah” was chosen by the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. The purpose of this group was to end Israel’s occupation through an arms struggle. It continued its resistance against the Israeli occupation. After the end of the Lebanese civil war, warring factions agreed to disarm, but not Hezbollah. Over the period of time when the South Lebanon Army ally of the Hezbollah army collapsed, it became weaker slightly. Henceforth, in 2000, Israel also withdrew its troops from Lebanon as per UN-designated borders.

After 2000, Hezbollah continued its cross-border firing. Hezbollah adopted a tactic to exchange Israeli soldiers for the release of the Lebanese citizens from the Israeli prison. In this regard, the 2006 Lebanon war started when Hezbollah captured the Israeli soldiers. However, the war was resolved with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 in 2006. After the UNSC resolution, the situation between the two countries had been comparatively normal for some time, despite the violation of the ceasefire agreement by both parties.

Current Situation

When the Israel-Palestine conflict was ongoing in October 2023, Hezbollah showed its solidarity with Palestinians while imposing attacks on Israel. The very act added fire to the fuel and resulted in serious problems between the two. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), in its report, indicates that from October 7, 2023, to June 21, 2024, approximately 7,400 attacks have been exchanged among Israel, Hezbollah, and other armed groups in Lebanon. ‘Israel alone accounts for 83 per cent of these attacks, totaling 6,142 incidents, killing at least 543 people in Lebanon’. “Hezbollah and other armed groups were responsible for 1,258 attacks that killed at least 21 Israelis” (Hussein 2024). Other actors involved in the escalation that played a major role in attacking Israel are the ‘Hamas’s Qassam Brigades, the Lebanese al-Fajr Forces and Amal Movement, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s al-Quds Brigades, both armed wings of Palestinian groups that maintain a presence in Lebanon’ (Hussein 2024).

Israel claimed that continuous attacks and bombardment against Israel by Hezbollah have resulted in the departure of their 80 thousand citizens from north Israel, and they are unable to return home. Israel also claimed that the northern city and towns are threatened due to Hezbollah’s presence on the Israeli border and that it will not tolerate the aggression of Hezbollah; it’s time to take decisive action.

Possibility of Full-Scale War?

Clausewitz’s philosophy of war suggests that there are three dominant tendencies of war: passion, chance, and reason, as he writes in his book On War, pointing out that when all three tendencies come together, war occurs eventually. The first tendency—passion—involves the state people; it comprises the desire of people’s beliefs, their sentiments, and their will, whether they want war or not. The second tendency—chance—indicates the unpredictable nature of war, which means anything can happen by accident or luck. The third tendency—reason—means that the political authority and military officials provide the reason why the war is essential.

If one applies Clausewitz’s theory to the Israel-Lebanon conflict, one can draw an analysis of three tendencies of war in the case of this conflict. In the case of the passion, 61 per cent of Israeli Jews were in favour of military action against Hezbollah, despite knowing the consequences of war between the two. Although 80 per cent of people are of the opinion of putting international pressure on Hezbollah to retreat, hence, the support for the ‘international political option’ was always higher than the military approaches’ (Scheindlin, 2024).

Applying the second element of the war given by Clausewitz, chance, which refers to the unpredictability of war. As Israel has experienced this many times in the past, it is prepared with the most sophisticated weapons and a robust army; thus, Israel in this regard has less possibility of taking risks in war. Compared to Hezbollah fighters and its other allies, Israel is equipped with advanced weaponry and technology and is far stronger, which puts it in a better situation currently. Further, Iran supports Hezbollah, and Israel would get support from the United States, which would create a significant difference between the two.

Looking at the third tendency, reason, the Israeli government has an obvious reason for war. Israel has faced various wars since its very inception, including the war between Israel and Lebanon. Recently, both were going through a conflict that consequently resulted in the displacement of 80 thousand citizens from north Israel. The Netanyahu regime has already given an open warning to Hezbollah, saying that it is not going to tolerate any further aggression and that Israel will also take appropriate action to counter Hezbollah. Henceforth, this tendency also qualifies for war in this context.

In a nutshell, in the case of an Israel-Lebanon war, although Israelis seek a military solution to stop the war, the majority of people are looking for an international political solution, specifically given the current circumstances. However, this opinion could change in the future. Though people’s opinions do not always stand for war, nevertheless, war is sometimes inevitable. Specifically, in the case of Israel, when the current Netanyahu regime faces corruption charges and there is huge anti-incumbency, it could be argued that war is necessary for his survival as well as for him to continue in power. Though the second and third tendencies are favourable for Israel to have a war, despite that, it will have to be seen whether it goes for a full-scale war or if it would rather opt for a ’limited war'.

The author is Research scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.