Israel-Hizbullah Tensions Near Boiling Point as Incidents Mount

Following recent conflicts over disputed territory, Hizbullah chief’s comments have stoked fears of a more extensive conflict

Tensions between Israel and the Lebanese-based Hizbullah organization are soaring, as a series of incidents threatens to spiral into a broader conflict.

On Wednesday, Hizbullah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah threatened Israel, saying Hizbullah would not “remain silent” if Israel acts against his organization.

Nasrallah’s comments referred to the latest dispute, in which Hizbullah set up tents within disputed Israeli territory. The comments came as part of a speech commemorating the 2006 war, a monthlong conflict in which both sides paid a heavy price. Since then, Israel and Hizbullah have carefully navigated the friction between them.

The tents were erected in early July in the Ghajar area, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 War and annexed in 1981. Lebanon claims the small village of Ghajar belongs to it, leading to an ongoing dispute since the end of the 18-year Israeli military occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000. Envoys from the United Nations split Ghajar between Lebanon and Israel, but Israel reoccupied the northern half of the town during fighting with Hizbullah in 2006.

Lebanese officials claim that Israel has recently built a wall around the Lebanese part of Ghajar, effectively taking over the area. In his speech, Nasrallah demanded the disputed territory return to Lebanese hands, calling on Lebanon to seize the land immediately. The residents of Ghajar are Israeli citizens and it is highly unlikely Israel will forfeit control of the area voluntarily.

Last month, Israel filed a complaint to the UN, saying the tents were breaching its sovereignty. One tent has since been dismantled and one remains.

Meanwhile, there have been several exchanges of fire and other incidents between Israel and Hizbullah in recent months.

These developments are not surprising. Hizbullah has changed its policy in the last year, especially after the signing of the maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon, which increased its appetite.

“These developments are not surprising,” said Sarit Zehavi, former Israeli military intelligence officer and founder of the Alma Research and Education Center, on Israel’s security challenges on its northern borders. “Hizbullah has changed its policy in the last year, especially after the signing of the maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon, which increased its appetite.”

Signed last fall, the agreement demarcates the maritime border and the division of rights between the two nations in the areas of the Mediterranean Sea along both coasts used for gas extraction.

In Israel, there was a heated debate over the signing of the agreement, which came during a turbulent political period and was signed by a caretaker government just weeks before a general election. Supporters of the agreement, including many from the defense establishment, claimed it would reduce the chances of an escalation with Hizbullah. The rationale was that the gas could help extricate Lebanon from its dire economic crisis and distance Hizbullah from conflict with Israel.

“The choice was to use diplomacy to solve the maritime dispute,” Zehavi said. “But in order for that not to become an opening for repeated Israeli concessions, Israel should not have chosen diplomacy to solve the tent dispute, but rather should have forcefully and swiftly removed them.”

Drilling to find gas for Lebanon, if such exists, will only begin in September. The outcome will likely have an impact on Nasrallah’s decision-making regarding a possible escalation with Israel.

Last Wednesday saw an explosion on the Israel-Lebanon border, wounding several Hizbullah fighters. According to a statement released by the Israeli military, suspects approached a security fence and attempted to sabotage it. In response, Israeli soldiers fired a stun grenade which apparently injured the operatives as they fled.

The 2006 war between Israel and Hizbullah ended in mutual deterrence, but this has eroded throughout the years. Israel now considers Hizbullah to be its most immediate and formidable threat.

While it worked to maintain a tense status quo with Israel along the Lebanese border, Hizbullah has strengthened significantly since 2006. In addition to a massive arsenal of missiles it is believed to possess, the organization reportedly has over 100 offensive drones. It has also gained significant combat experience, as it sent many of its soldiers to help stabilize the Assad regime in Syria during its civil war.

Hizbullah is also believed to have improved its precision missile abilities. Israel’s air force is reportedly behind hundreds of airstrikes that have targeted this project. Yet the strikes’ success appears to be limited, as the huge arsenal of missiles is believed to have remained intact.

When this is the situation, the only thing Hizbullah can do is start a war. There is no other way to rehabilitate Lebanon.

The internal situation in Lebanon cannot be ignored when taking into account Hizbullah’s considerations. As Lebanon faces the worst economic crisis in its history, Nasrallah and Hizbullah are viewed by the Lebanese as bearing great responsibility for the situation, damaging their political reputation. The armed organization is viewed as part of the corrupt ruling class that plunged the country into bankruptcy. Hence, any natural gas findings could change the course of events significantly.

“When this is the situation, the only thing Hizbullah can do is start a war,” said Dr. Eyal Pinko, a professor at Bar-Ilan University’s Political Studies Department and an expert on military strategy and intelligence. “There is no other way to rehabilitate Lebanon.”

“Nasrallah will want to provoke Israel into starting a war, in order for him to be able to say it was Israel’s fault and thus justify himself to the Lebanese people,” Pinko added.

Since the end of the war in 2006, Israel has chosen to give measured responses to Hizbullah’s attempts to provoke it. According to Pinko, this is a display of “complete weakness.”

Not only is the political situation in Lebanon unstable, but Israel is also amid a major crisis. Months of demonstrations against the government’s attempt to legislate sweeping judicial reforms have left the country reeling and divided. Many Israeli politicians have warned that Israel’s enemies will see this as an ideal time to attack the country.

“The Israeli leadership is trying to avoid a confrontation and Hizbullah sees this as a weakness,” Pinko explained. “Nasrallah realizes Israel does not want to rock the boat. Israel may be averting a war, but in the meantime, Nasrallah emerges as the great winner, especially in Lebanese public opinion.”

The political crisis in Israel has also led to a rift in its relations with the United States, which has always been perceived as a strong ally of Israel, giving it military support and backing in the international arena.

With the US gradually seeking to lessen its involvement in the Middle East, Hizbullah appears to be nearing a critical point in which the time may be ripe to attack Israel, provoking a massive Israeli response.

The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine also has repercussions in the Middle East. Iran, which is the main funder of Hizbullah, has grown closer to Russia since the beginning of the war. Many Middle Eastern countries look at the lack of substantial military support by the US to Ukraine as an omen of the lack of support they would receive to combat Iranian aggression in the region.

“Russia will support Iran and Hizbullah in the event of a war, and the US will not take any action,” Pinko said. “This is even more motivation for Hizbullah.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s shadow in the Middle East is growing. According to Zehavi, Iran’s strength is the “most important factor” when Nasrallah makes his calculations.

While Hizbullah and Israel appear to be making very calculated moves in this political chess game, the nature of the conflict between them in the past has shown that sometimes small incidents can ignite a larger conflict.