Israel’s airstrikes in Lebanon are different from what’s happening in Gaza. Here’s why

The escalating Middle East conflict has reached an exceedingly dangerous point that should compel the world to rethink its strategy of running for the hills for fear of another misadventure in the Levant.

The pivot point is that Israel has stopped tolerating the almost year-long rocket fire, shelling and drone strikes from the Iranian proxy militia Hezbollah, which has essentially taken over southern Lebanon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Credit: AP

Following an intelligence operation that caused thousands of communications devices carried by Hezbollah fighters to explode, last week Israel began a massive targeted bombing campaign to take out key leadership members and destroy Hezbollah’s enormous arsenal of Iranian-supplied rockets. On Saturday, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah for the past 32 years and one of the militant group’s founders, was killed in an Israeli airstrike. He is the fourth senior Hezbollah figure to be killed in this latest round of attacks, and his death is a possible game-changer.

The situation that has now been created is different from the messy Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in which the question of who is right is so subjective and entangled in narratives and emotion that it belongs in a box of its own. The latter is, moreover, a complex territorial dispute of the kind that is in most cases throughout history settled by force, with the outcome determined by which side is more patient and determined.

Israel and Lebanon have no real territorial dispute, although Hezbollah has tried to invent one. The reality is of an Iran-backed militia that exists to harm Israel and little else. If after a year Israel has run out of patience, that is defensible. If the world does not want Israel to act, it must offer another solution. Weak-minded calls for a ceasefire will simply not cut it, and are indeed unfair.

Israel seems to hope that enough pressure on Hezbollah will cause the group – and its Iranian paymasters – to back down, agree to a ceasefire, and pull back from its border, which would be an implementation of the 2006 UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

It’s not inconceivable, given the damage that has been done to Hezbollah. But it is also unlikely; it is not in the DNA of jihadi groups to surrender without being physically destroyed.

Following last week’s escalation, there is a pretty good chance that Israeli tanks end up rumbling into southern Lebanon at some point relatively soon. That scenario could lead in any number of unpleasant directions, including direct Iranian involvement, or even attacks by Iran or its proxies on US oil and military interests in the region and the Persian Gulf.

Moreover, Israel is currently led by the most right-wing government in its history, with a prime minister who is on trial for bribery and discredited by the colossal failure of October 7.

Benjamin Netanyahu is under a massive cloud of suspicion that renders him perennially suspected of making security decisions based on political calculations. As one example, he argues that the political accounting over the October 7 debacle – which has over 70 per cent of Israelis wanting him to resign – should await the end of the war, which clearly incentivises him to prolong and amplify it.

That said, the normally divided Israeli public is extraordinarily united around the goal of removing Hezbollah from the border and degrading its rocket power. Indeed, there is outrage that the international community appears not to grasp the absurdity of Israel seemingly being expected to await Iran-backed terrorists to attack it with impunity.

All of this should be viewed as a regional and even global emergency, especially since Iran – freed of the constraints of the 2015 nuclear deal that was ripped up by then US president Donald Trump – could achieve nuclear weapons status quickly and gain deterrent power that would transform the Middle East.

This is not just an Israeli problem; it’s a global one. And the time has come for the world to begin dealing with it by recognising that Hezbollah in particular must be neutralised. To leave Israel to deal with it would be a particularly dangerous manoeuvre under Netanyahu’s toxic leadership.

While Hezbollah enjoys significant support among Lebanon’s Shiite population (roughly 30 per cent of the country), its hold is not invincible.

Lebanon is reeling from years of economic dysfunction brought on by corruption and the presence of perhaps over a million refugees. A comprehensive international effort is needed to rebuild its political, economic, and military institutions. Yet critical aid and reconstruction money has been withheld precisely because of exasperation with Hezbollah’s corrupting and odious presence in the country.

Lebanon must be freed of Hezbollah and Iran, and it should not be left up to Israel and its highly problematic Netanyahu government. The international community needs to take an active role in supporting Lebanon’s recovery and resisting Iranian interference. The UN Security Council can start the process by demanding the implementation of 1701.

NATO, with its vast military and diplomatic resources, and through the help of partner nations including Australia, could play a pivotal role in stabilising southern Lebanon and helping the armed forces regain control, and thereby help reduce Hezbollah’s influence and curb Iran’s reach.

No one wants more war complications – but this would be a good cause.

Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press. He also served as chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem and is the author of two books about Israel.