The verbal sparring between Hizballah and Israel has been intensifying as of late, and it seems that every week brings a new threatening exchange between the two regional rivals.
According to Danny Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister: “If, God forbid, one hair falls off the head of any Israeli representative abroad, or of even an Israeli who is not an official representative, tourists etc., we will consider Hezbollah responsible,” he said.
Sentiments like this inch the two sides closer to confrontation. Last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced that Israel exercised restraint during the 2006 War, but in a new confrontation this would not be the case. He indicated that all of Lebanon would pay the price for any Hizballah violence committed on Israel or its people.
It is difficult to imagine what Barak could have in mind this time considering that, during the last confrontation, Israel’s “restraint” brought billions of dollars of damage to Lebanon’s nationwide infrastructure, turned a huge swath of Lebanese territory in the south into a virtual mine field, and took over a thousand Lebanese lives- mostly civilian.
And every time an official from one side publicly threatens the other, a retaliatory statement must be made to show that we are stronger than ever and we will not back down. This type of aggressive posturing from one side just begets more of the same from the other.
But what will this tough talk add up to? At first glance, it seems as though this whole situation is just a powder keg looking for a spark (or a katyusha rocket, or a IDF cluster-bomb). As the two sides seemingly move closer and closer to war, its scary to think that one overzealous Israeli soldier or one impulsive Hizballah fighter too eager to prove his anti-Zionist mettle could set things ablaze. In this game, one false move on either side could lead to something far more destructive than what we saw in 2006.
But on the other hand, perhaps all of this talk, however menacing, is a good thing. The 2006 war seemingly sprung out of nowhere, when the kidnapping of an IDF soldier escalated at a speed that no one could have predicted. Hizballah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah’s office in Dahye (South Beirut) was bombed; an endless barrage of rockets were launched into Israel; IDF bombers ravaged the whole of Lebanon. After only 34 days of fighting, Lebanon, which had worked so hard to rebuild after its civil war, was once again a smoldering heap of rubble.
The point is that all of this happened with little prior warning and no one really had the chance to pressure one side or the other to change directions before the situation got out of control. At least now the right people are well aware of the tensions that exist between Hizballah and Israel at moment. Nasrallah himself put it best in a statement that, to be fair, is perhaps applicable to both sides:
“According to my knowledge of Israelis, when they jabber they are not to be feared. We should be vigilant when they are quiet, like snakes.”
So while it might be good that all of this aggression is manifesting itself out in the open, it still begs the question has this war of words moved beyond mere saber-rattling?
While it is not good that the level of hostility between Hizballah and Israel is so high at this point, it is good that the battle between the two is being fought in the press instead of being planned in some secret War Room somewhere. Talk is encouraging, silence is worrisome.
However, if you look at what is being said, there is an actual shift taking place in the nature of this conflict. Going back to Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon’s remark to the effect that if one hair is harmed on the head of any Israeli, or Israeli representative, anywhere in the world, Hizballah would be blamed. Statements like this completely remove all margin for error. In this way,even if some young diplomat gets mugged in New York City, Hizballah could be held accountable. Is this “saber rattling”, or is Israel angling for a fight at this point?
Equally menacing is Hassan Nasrallah’s statement that, as in 2006, Hizballah would have another “surprise” for Israel in the event of an attack. Last time, the “surprise” was Hizballah’s anti-tank capabilities and C-802 Silkworm missiles that no one knew they had. It was a wake-up call to the world that Hizballah could take an Israeli battleship out of commission. Never again would they be considered a traditional Molotov & Kalashnikov resistance; this was a well-trained and well-equipped army.
But that new respect came with a high price. In the face of Israel’s policy of severe response, Hizballah’s new capabilities meant destruction for Lebanon. They may have sank an Israeli destroyer to the cheers of the Arab world, but Israel exacted a far more ruinous revenge. As a result Lebanon saw bridges, highways, oil refineries, and entire neighborhoods destroyed.
So Nasrallah claims that he has a “surprise” for Israel. What could it possibly be? He has already publicly stated that his army has rockets that can reach the all of Israel:
“…it is our right to tell the Israelis that if you bomb Dahye or Beirut, we will bomb Tel Aviv. We have the ability to hit any city or town in your entity. Carry out as much drills as you want, develop your tanks’ armors and train your brigades; they will be crushed in our towns, villages, valleys and hills. There will be new surprises, so they have to think a million times before waging war on us.”
If rockets that can hit all of Israel is not the surprise, then what is? As Hizballah’s capabilites increase, so does the conflict’s pace of escalation. At this point, what is holding these two back from total war once the match is thrown on the tinderbox? Israeli officials have said that all Lebanon would pay the price for any violence against any Israeli, anywhere in the world, whether Hizballah is responsible or not. Hizballah officials have said that if Israel strikes, no one anywhere in Israel will be safe.
The scenario of a future war between these two would be catastrophic. And while they are just words being exchanged in the media right now, the nature of the words is highly alarming. One can’t help but be reminded of the Cold War between the United States and Russia where peace was only achieved through a policy “mutually assured destruction”.
Is this what we have today? In the Cold War, both sides were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, which could have indeed destroyed both massive nations, even though they were separated on both sides by oceans. Nuclear weapons, which the Israelis possess, can hopefully be counted out of the equation at this point due the the proximity of the combatants, but it is because of that proximity that nuclear weapons are not needed to completely destroy each country.
Hizballah is alleged to have some 40,000 rockets stockpiled near the Israeli border, and that doesn’t include whatever “surprises” Hizballah has amassed in the last three years with the help of Syria and Iran. And the IDF is more than capable of leveling all of Lebanon in the event of a Israel-wide assault by Hizballah. These nations are tiny and it wouldn’t take much to completely ruin them both.
For the inhabitants of each country, this is a doomsday scenario. But perhaps this might be enough to maintain peace. Maybe this is the Middle East’s version of a mini Cold War where words are exchanged, but restraint is exercised in the face of mutually assured destruction.
In the case of the US and Russia, communication was paramount to their peaceful stability. Right now the battle is being fought in the press, which is about all the communication we’ll get between Hizballah and Israel. The Red Phone between Kennedy and Khruschev it is not, but at least the two sides are talking in their own way.
Over the years, both Hizballah’s and Israel’s armies have shown remarkable discipline, and hopefully a conflict won’t arise unless one side or the other really wants it. Of course the trick is to keeps each side from “wanting it”. No one would win with another war: not Hizballah, not the Israelis, and certainly not the Lebanese. Aside from this “no win” situation, international pressure must be put on both sides to make clear that another confrontation would not be tolerated.
UNIFIL officials, charged with keeping the peace between the two, have said that despite hostilities in the press, the border between Lebanon and Israel has been relatively quiet. For the good of both countries, let us hope it stays that way.
