Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s defense minister, announced this week that “we will not stand idly by whilst a ‘second front’ is opened. We will be forced to hit infrastructure on the Lebanese side of the border.” General Benny Gantz of the Northern Command added that the IDF is convinced of Hizbullah’s intention to initiate an attack on Israel under the stealth of the American-led strike on Iraq.
Is an escalation just a matter of time?
Following Israel’s one-sided withdrawal from Southern Lebanon some two and a half years ago, much concern has been voiced on the Israeli side over the short and medium range missiles deployed along the Lebanese border by Hizbullah. An Israeli army deeply preoccupied with the on-going conflict with the Palestinians would much rather have the northern threat removed and Israeli deterrence, damaged by the hurried retreat in 2000, restored.
The threat of bombing Lebanese infrastructure and damaging the country’s reemerging economy – in particular its tourist industry that is just beginning to show signs of recovery — is a potent one. Perhaps, it is hoped, the threat by itself would suffice to deter the Lebanese government and their Syrian landlords from backing an offensive Hizbullah policy.
Nevertheless, the use of the media in the debate over the organization’s deployment and its intentions also has a hidden agenda: making what is perceived to be Hizbullah’s secret intentions public and thus foiling them, thus signaling to the other side that Israel is aware of its plans and is prepared to strike back. In the summer of 1996, Syria redeployed one of its divisions, leaving Israel uncertain of its intentions. A newly elected Israeli government fearful of a Syrian attack made this information public much for the same purpose.
Having taken into account the Israeli position, it is very surprising to find similar statements on the Lebanese side. Early this month, the commander of the Lebanese army, Lt. General Michael Suleiman, warned against Israel’s exploitation of regional developments in order to launch an aggression against Lebanon. He urged his countrymen to beware of “expected dangers resulting from the Israeli ambitions and its attempts to use the American threats to carry out its aggressions in order to undermine Lebanon’s stability and freedom.” It seems Lebanon sees itself as a potential victim of an Israeli attack.
Muhammad Ra’ed, the Head of Hizbullah’s representatives in the Lebanese Parliament, announced this week that his organization does not intend to attack Israel in case of a war in Iraq. This statement comes not so much as a result of the Israeli threats, but more out of a wish to deny Israel the casus belli that it is seeking, according to the Lebanese perception. And what of the missiles deployed in Southern Lebanon? The organization views them as a countermeasure – a form of deterrence – against an Israeli attack on Lebanese infrastructure.
The Israeli side has plenty of reason to be distrustful of Hizbullah. Despite the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanese soil, the conflict did not come to its closure and Hizbullah continued to pursue an offensive policy. In the last two and a half years, the organization abducted four Israelis (three soldiers who are presumed to be dead and a businessman) and initiated several border incidents in which soldiers and civilians (including a boy from the A’lawite village of Rajar) were hurt. The belligerent statements of Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah, the general secretary of Hizbullah, certainly add to the distrust. But what does Hizbullah stand to gain from a full-scale conflict with Israel? Will such a conflict strengthen the organization’s position in the Lebanese arena? Will the Syrians permit Hizbullah to initiate an escalation? These questions are not easily answered.
It is important not to automatically ascribe malice to your opponent. The late Yehoshafat Harkabi, a former head of Israeli intelligence and a professor in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, once wrote that “a conflict between nations is to a certain extent a war of shadows: every side wrestles with the image of his adversary as he perceives it.”
***
Nir Arielli teaches history on the university level and is a former intelligence officer in the Israel Defense Forces.
***