At a time when Israeli military operations continue in southern Lebanon, voices are rising inside Israel warning of the political and regional repercussions of this war, considering that field expansion may give Hezbollah an opportunity to regain its legitimacy within Lebanon and the Arab world, after its position had been subjected to increasing erosion over the past years.
According to an analytical article by Ksenia Svetlova, an expert in Arab affairs and former member of the Israeli Knesset, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, despite having classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization for years, issued strongly worded statements in recent days against what they considered a violation of Lebanese sovereignty and an expansion of the Israeli military operation in southern Lebanon.
The writer pointed out that the Saudi statement clearly stressed support for the exclusive right of the Lebanese state to bear arms, and called for the implementation of the Taif Agreement signed in 1989, which ended the Lebanese civil war.
Svetlova believes that these positions do not fall within the routine statements of condemnation usually issued by Arab countries, but rather reflect growing concern about the current developments in Lebanon and the region.
She adds that Arab capitals are following with concern what is happening in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem, especially in the vicinity of Al-Aqsa Mosque, and they are also very sensitive to issues of national sovereignty.
The author recalls the experience of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, considering that the long Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands and the violent events that accompanied it led to a noticeable cooling in Egyptian-Israeli relations less than 3 years after the signing of the peace agreement between the two countries.
She explains that the current reality bears aspects of differences and similarities at the same time. On the one hand, the Arab countries realize that the Lebanese government, despite its intentions, is still unable to disarm Hezbollah. They also realize that the flames of northern Israel inevitably mean instability in southern Lebanon.
But, on the other hand, it sees what it describes as Israel’s attempts to re-establish the “security zone” inside Lebanese territory, in addition to the systematic destruction of southern villages and statements issued by Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir regarding the establishment of settlements inside Lebanese territory.
It also refers to what it describes as attempts by extremist groups to cross the border into Lebanon and draw plans to establish new settlements.
The author points out that Israeli society does not usually take the statements of Ben Gvir and his partners in the ruling coalition seriously, but Arab capitals view them with complete seriousness, especially since past experiences have proven that similar ideas previously began as marginal steps before turning into long-term policies.
She adds that Israeli statements regarding maintaining a long-term presence in southern Syria, along with talk about Lebanon, lead many in the Middle East to believe that Israel is not only seeking security, but also to expand its borders for the first time since 1967 and 1973.
According to the writer, these developments once again feed the theories of “Greater Israel” that have been spreading for decades in the Middle East, noting that the appearance of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich with maps that do not include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, along with Ben Gvir’s calls for settlement in southern Lebanon, gives additional momentum to these theories.
Svetlova believes that there is growing concern in moderate Arab countries that Israeli operations in southern Lebanon will weaken the Lebanese government and give Hezbollah new legitimacy.
She explains that the party built its position during the years of the Israeli presence in southern Lebanon on the basis that it was “the legitimate resistance that defends the Lebanese homeland,” but since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, many Lebanese began to wonder why it continued to retain its weapons despite the Taif Agreement, which stipulated the dissolution of all armed militias.
She points out that a number of Hezbollah representatives announced this week that the security escalation and Israel’s attempt to “regain control of Lebanese lands” make talk about disarming the party futile, and that the party remains committed to “defending the homeland.”
On the other hand, she pointed out that Hezbollah’s opponents in the Lebanese Parliament accused the party that its policies provided the pretext for Israel to attack Lebanon and control parts of its territory.
The author believes that if the current situation continues for a long time, it will become difficult for the Lebanese government to create a rift within the Shiite environment and move part of this popular base to a position opposed to Hezbollah.
In conclusion of her analysis, Svetlova asserts that raising the Israeli flag over Beaufort Castle will not restore security to the residents of northern Israel, considering that the solution lies in gradually building Lebanese state institutions, in addition to weakening Hezbollah through military, economic, political and social tools, and in coordination with Arab countries that wish to see Lebanon away from Iranian influence.
It warns that the absence of a clear policy at this stage not only threatens the chances of improving the Lebanese reality, but also puts at stake the possibility of building real regional cooperation with Arab countries, and threatens to transform Israel in the eyes of its potential allies from a partner into an “agent of chaos” in the region.
