Assessing the Potential for a Full-Scale War Between Israel and Lebanon

UN warned that a full-scale war between Israel and Lebanon was a daunting issue currently. With UN resolution 181 the creation of Israel as a state was put into place and since then it has witnessed various resolutions whether in favour or against and its relevance continues. Israel’s formation has been unique in terms of its history as Israel has been facing wars from 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), the Lebanon War (1982) then after the first and second intifada. So, Israel has fought many wars from its inception. It is not a new phenomenon for Israel.

Glimpse on Israel-Lebanon conflict   

The conflict between Israel and Lebanon is a long-standing conflict, which has roots since 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 PLOs were 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 in the north of the Litani River (Norton: 2017), However,  PLO continued their campaign against Israel, therefore, Israel again invaded Lebanon in 1982.

Thereafter in 1983 May 17 Agreement between Israel and Lebanon to stop the cross-border attacks came into being the focus of the agreement was normalizing the relations between the two states (Norton: 2017). In this regard the earlier agreement May 17 Agreement could not normalize the relations due to the ongoing Lebanese civil- war in 1984 where the Shia and Druze militia defeated the Lebanese army. Consequently, Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 1985 meant the end of Israel 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 organization known as Hezbollah came out to be the dominant non-state actor against Israel. This organization was established as a result of the 1982 Israeli attack on Lebanon and  It was inspired by the Iranian revolution. “Hezbollah” name 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 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 slightly weaker. Henceforth, in 2000 Israel also withdrew their 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 the 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. 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, totalling 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 which played a major role in attacking Israel are the ‘Hamas’s Qassam Brigades Lebanese al-Fajr Forces and Amal Movement and 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 bombarding against Israel by Hezbollah have resulted in the shift 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 Israel 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 (1976), pointing out that when all three tendencies three 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 is chance, it indicates the shows the unpredictable nature of war which means anything can happen by accident or luck. The third tendency is reason, which means that the political authority and military officials provide the reason why the war is essential.

If one applies Clausewitz’s theory to Israel Lebanon conflict one can draw an analysis of three tendencies of war in the case of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. In the case of 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 to take risks in war. Compared to Hezbollah fighters and its other allies Israel is equipped with advanced weaponry, and technology Israel 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 which is reason, the Israeli government has an obvious reason for war. Israel in the past has faced various wars since its very inception including the war between Israel and Lebanon. Recently when both are going through a conflict that consequently resulting the displacement of 80 thousand citizens from north Israel. Netanyahu’s regime has already given an open warning to Hezbollah, saying that it is not going to tolerate any further aggression and Israel will also take appropriate action to counter Hezbollah, henceforth, this tendency also justifies the war in this context.

In a nutshell, it could be argued that in the case of the Israel-Lebanon war although Israeli people seek a military solution to stop the war, nevertheless majority of people looking for an international political solution specifically given the current circumstances, however, this opinion could be changed in future. Though people’s opinions do not stand for war always nevertheless, war sometimes is inevitable. Specifically in the case of Israel, when the current Netanyahu regime faces corruption charges and there is huge anti-incumbency hence, it could be argued that war is necessary for his survival as well and also for him to continue in power. As the second and third tendencies of war indicated to be in favour of war for Israel, in spite of that it could go for a full-scale war or it would rather go for the limited war.