FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Resolving the conflict in Lebanon requires taking into account its long and complex history, as well as new geopolitical realities.
Amid a fragile ceasefire, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun is preparing for what some are calling a “historic” visit to Washington. US President Donald Trump is reportedly pushing for a meeting between him and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If it happens, it would be the first such meeting in history.
However, a symbolic meeting is not enough to resolve the conflict in Lebanon, which has deep historical roots and wide geopolitical implications. Despite the ceasefire, Israel continues to control parts of southern Lebanon. According to Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, the aim is to create a “security zone” in all territory south of the Litani River, which constitutes about 10 percent of the country’s territory.
The civilian population has not been allowed to return to their homes, while Israeli forces have continued large-scale bombing and destruction. The narrative of “destruction of Hezbollah” is used to justify a broader campaign of destruction and displacement.
Control of the areas south of the Litani River is not only a military objective for Israel, but is also linked to historical aspirations. In 1918, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and David Ben-Gurion, in their book “The Land of Israel,” described a territory stretching from the Litani River to the Gulf of Aqaba. The following year, at the Paris Conference, the World Zionist Organization presented a memorandum for the creation of a Jewish state that included this area.
During the 1948 war, the Israeli army moved into southern Lebanon. In October of that year, it occupied the village of Hula without encountering resistance, killing more than 80 defenseless civilians. The main perpetrator of this massacre was sentenced to only one year in prison and later pardoned, continuing his career in high positions.
Other villages near the Lebanese-Israeli border, such as Qadas and Saliha, also experienced similar massacres and expulsions. At the same time, about 100,000 Palestinian refugees settled in Lebanon after the Nakba. These developments have significantly affected the demographic composition of the south of the country.
The decades that followed further shaped the region. In the 1960s, many Shiite areas in southern Lebanon faced a lack of basic services, such as drinking water and electricity. The state invested only 0.7 percent of public spending in the area, which contributed to the political mobilization of the Shiite community in the following years.
The Lebanese Civil War, which began in 1975, was influenced by deep internal divisions and the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which acted as a “state within a state” and carried out attacks against Israel. In March 1978, Israel launched Operation Litani, a major offensive in southern Lebanon to strike PLO bases, causing massive displacement of civilians and the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces.
The Israeli intervention of 1982 further changed the situation. Initially, some sections of the Shiite community welcomed the departure of the PLO, but it soon became clear that Israel had no intention of withdrawing. This accelerated the political mobilization of the Shiites and led to the creation of Hezbollah.
In the decades that followed, Hezbollah became a major security concern for Israel, using southern Lebanon for rocket attacks. The organization also developed close ties with Iran, which considers it a strategic partner and a first line of defense against Israel. Tehran has transferred military technology to Hezbollah, including advanced missiles, drones, and cyber capabilities.
Although Hezbollah poses a threat to Israel, the analysis also highlights the vast disparity in military power. Between 2007 and 2022, over 22,000 violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel were documented. After October 7, 2023, reports indicate that Israeli attacks on Lebanon have been five times more frequent than those by Hezbollah. Even after the 2024 ceasefire, air violations have continued at a high rate.
For Iran, Hezbollah, and Israel, the conflict has taken on existential dimensions. For the Lebanese government, Hezbollah represents both a challenge to stability and a means of putting pressure on Israel. For the United States, the conflict remains a military and political engagement.
But several key conclusions emerge. First , there is no military solution to a fundamentally political problem; the use of force usually makes the situation worse. Second , there are powerful actors on the ground who fuel the conflict. Third , the perception of weakness makes a country more vulnerable to attack. Finally , relying on external actors for security does not guarantee lasting peace.
In conclusion, achieving peace, which is often more difficult than winning the war, requires a new regional order negotiated and accepted by key local actors./ Adapted from "Pamphlet" by "Al Jazeera".
Lini një Përgjigje