– Fadi Eid
The confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah is no longer within clear boundaries, but has become vulnerable to gradual escalation and excessive violence. The bombing of the Qasimiya Bridge with an air strike is nothing but an indication that Israel is moving forward in testing the extent of deterrence, taking advantage of the tense regional situation to expand its operations under the pretext of striking the party’s military infrastructure, cutting off supply routes to the south of the Litani, and isolating the region from the rest of the regions.
Informed diplomatic sources believe that Israeli political positions indicate an intention for a long war, which indicates that Israel is currently seeking long-term attrition, through precise and increasing strikes targeting the logistical and human depth of the party. But the bombing of bridges, especially the Qasimiya Bridge, may not carry military dimensions as much as it is a message of threat and pressure on the Lebanese state and the people, that the danger of sliding into a broader confrontation has become possible, after the existing balance has been broken, and the response has become out of control.
On the other hand, with Israel beginning to target infrastructure in the south, sources indicate that the time has come to ask the most important question in the Lebanese street, about the extent to which the Lebanese can bear the cost of a war whose decision they do not fully control, especially since Israel hints that the war has not yet begun, which means that any expansion of military operations will place infrastructure and services throughout Lebanon, under great pressure and unprecedented danger, which may lead to humanitarian repercussions that go beyond what Lebanon has witnessed in previous periods.
Diplomatic sources add that the concept of “enduring war” is no longer limited to the military side, but is also related to society’s ability to withstand the face of a comprehensive collapse, and not just the collapse of communication methods between the regions and between the Lebanese, because any long-term war will constitute an existential threat that goes beyond traditional political calculations.
In this context, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s speech yesterday evening acquires special importance, after he tried to achieve a delicate balance between emphasizing Lebanon’s commitment to international legitimacy, in particular Resolution 1701, and recognizing a complex reality dominated by regional considerations that exceed the state’s ability to fully control. According to the reading of these sources, the Prime Minister sent a double message: to the outside world with the need to protect Lebanon from sliding into a comprehensive war, and to the homeland with the need to restore respect to the logic of the state as the sole reference in the decision of peace and war.
However, this discourse, despite its political realism, at the same time reflects the limits of the government’s executive capacity. The gap between the official position and the facts on the ground is still large, which raises questions about the extent of the authority’s ability to translate its commitments into practical policies.
As the atmosphere of tension increases due to war and displacement, sources reveal that shifts have occurred in the political scene, considering that the next stage will be determined based on a delicate balance between an Israeli decision to expand the scope of operations, and the ability of the Lebanese arena to overcome the open political and military adventures of the party, which appears clear from the statements of its officials that it has severed lines of communication with most political forces, and has engaged in a battle that exceeds Lebanon’s ability to endure, while the heavy costs are accumulating politically, socially, economically, and financially.
