The Lebanon Conflict: Roots Many Americans Forget
Nearly fifty years ago, I crossed into Lebanon as part of Operation Litani, the first large-scale Israeli incursion into the country. At the time, I was a young soldier. Like most Israelis, I knew Lebanon was formally at war with Israel. But I also believed that most Lebanese people wanted what most Israelis wanted: to live their lives, raise their children, and build a future rather than fight a perpetual war.
Nearly fifty years later, that belief remains unchanged.
The actors have changed. The Palestinian armed groups that once operated from southern Lebanon have largely been replaced by Hezbollah. But the tragedy itself remains remarkably familiar.
As the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah once again captures headlines, I am struck by how often one central reality is overlooked. The media naturally focuses on the latest exchange of fire, the latest casualties, and the latest destruction. Tens of thousands of Israelis and Lebanese have been displaced from their homes. Families on both sides of the border have endured fear, uncertainty, and loss. Their suffering deserves our attention and compassion.
But focusing only on the latest round of violence can obscure a more fundamental question: What are the goals of the parties involved?
The conflict is often presented as a struggle between a powerful state and a weaker adversary. Certainly, there is a profound military asymmetry. Israel’s military is vastly stronger than Lebanon’s, and the destruction in Lebanon has often been far greater than in Israel. Those facts are real and should be reported honestly.
As an Israeli, I have spent much of my life grappling with that reality. I was raised on the story of the few against the many. My parents’ generation fought in Israel’s War of Independence when the young state seemed perpetually on the brink of destruction. We grew up identifying with David facing Goliath.
At some point, however, many Israelis had to confront an uncomfortable truth: we had become the stronger party. We were no longer David. In military terms, at least, we had become Goliath.
Recognizing that reality is important. Power carries responsibility. It requires honesty about the suffering that military action can inflict, even when undertaken in self-defense. It requires questioning our own actions and holding our leaders accountable.
Yet military power alone does not explain the nature of a conflict.
At its core, the Israel-Lebanon conflict is shaped by a profound asymmetry of objectives. Israel seeks security and acceptance within the region. Hezbollah, backed by Iran, continues to embrace an ideology that rejects Israel’s legitimacy and has repeatedly called for its elimination.
This distinction matters.
Israelis disagree passionately about governments, military tactics, settlements, diplomacy, and particular military operations. But any honest discussion of the conflict must acknowledge that one of the principal actors has repeatedly declared that coexistence with Israel is not its goal.
Hezbollah is not merely critical of Israeli policies. From its earliest statements, it has rejected Israel’s existence altogether. While its public rhetoric has evolved over the years, hostility to Israel remains central to its identity.
At the same time, Hezbollah is not Lebanon.
Many Lebanese citizens have paid an enormous price for Hezbollah’s decisions. They have seen their country repeatedly drawn into conflicts they did not choose and often do not support. Like Israelis, they want safety, stability, economic opportunity, and a future for their children.
That conviction is not abstract to me. I remember entering Lebanese villages during Operation Litani and encountering civilians whose lives looked remarkably familiar. They were not ideological enemies. They were families trying to live amid forces larger than themselves. The years have only strengthened my belief that ordinary Lebanese and ordinary Israelis want many of the same things.
Yet Hezbollah has become one of the most powerful military and political forces in Lebanon. Supported, financed, armed, and trained by Iran, it possesses capabilities that rival or exceed those of the Lebanese state itself. As a result, it can pursue policies that draw Lebanon into confrontation regardless of whether those policies reflect the wishes of ordinary Lebanese citizens.
Some argue that Hezbollah emerged primarily in response to Israeli actions in Lebanon. There is truth in that observation. The history of Lebanon, Israel, and the Lebanese Civil War is complicated. Israeli interventions helped shape the environment in which Hezbollah grew.
But history did not begin with Hezbollah.
Cross-border attacks against Israel were occurring years before Hezbollah existed. Palestinian armed groups established bases in southern Lebanon and launched raids into Israel throughout the late 1960s and 1970s. Israeli military operations in Lebanon began as responses to attacks launched from Lebanese territory.
Understanding that sequence of events does not require agreement with every Israeli decision. Particular military responses can and should be debated. But the conflict did not begin because Israel sought Lebanese territory.
Indeed, despite decades of conflict, there is little evidence that Israel has ever sought to annex Lebanon. By contrast, Hezbollah’s commitment to Israel’s disappearance has been repeatedly articulated in its own statements and publications.
Living in the United States for more than forty years, I have often been struck by how differently Americans understand conflict. Americans tend to assume that wars are fought primarily over territory, resources, or power. Those factors matter in the Middle East as well. But Israelis also carry something else: a deeply ingrained awareness that some of their enemies do not simply oppose particular policies. They oppose the very existence of a Jewish state.
That reality shapes Israeli perceptions in ways that are often difficult for outsiders to understand.
Nearly fifty years after I first entered Lebanon, I remain convinced that ordinary Israelis and ordinary Lebanese want many of the same things: safety, dignity, prosperity, and peace.
The tragedy is that the conflict is not driven primarily by those ordinary people. It is driven by organizations and ideologies that continue to reject coexistence.
Until that changes, both peoples will remain trapped in a conflict neither truly deserves.
