Even as the ruinous but also essential war grinds on against Hamas in Gaza, there is increasing concern about another costly war with Hezbollah in the North. Especially after October 7, Israel is less tolerant of militias menacing its villages from right across a border. And it is finding it intolerable to absorb long-term shelling, as it has now for months, just because Hezbollah feels the need to make a statement.
Israelis have certainly heard the political leadership make clear that patience is running out. American mediators have heard this too, and, for many, this is good enough. But I’d like to propose that it is not. Far more robust public diplomacy is needed to move public opinion in a way that also focuses the minds of governments, and projects urgency, clarifies seriousness, and might prevent a war.
And preventing a war is desirable. There is a widespread expectation that an attack on Hezbollah would unleash massive rocket attacks on Israel, with missiles far more powerful than those of Hamas that would not be as easily dispatched by Iron Dome and would cause massive destruction and death in Tel Aviv. This is behind the recent panic that has Israelis buying generators and preparing for a prolonged emergency.
If this occurs, Israel has made clear that it will target infrastructure and other targets in Lebanon, beyond purely Hezbollah facilities, and it will strike at the capital, Beirut, which would quickly become a global emergency. Israel’s position is both understandable and unfair: Lebanon, which is so divided that it has not had a president or a military chief in over a year, really does not control Hezbollah. The only influence on the group – and that is not even complete – is from its patrons in Tehran.
Israel knows this, of course. Its message is mainly directed at Hezbollah itself, and at the Lebanese public, in the hope that it will pressure the group. Indeed, there have been a variety of appeals, from politicians and in signed petitions, to Hezbollah to avoid war. It has not been nearly enough, but it may explain why Hezbollah has appeared to try to not go too far.
Israel needs for there to be far more pressure on Hezbollah from the public in Lebanon – and for the world to understand where the fault lies should war break out.
Netanyahu should send a message to the Lebanese people
Why, then, not make its position crystal clear, in a dramatic public appeal engineered to gain maximum media attention as it extends an olive branch? A more clever Israeli leader than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one who is not constantly playing to a hard-Right base, might deliver a missive constructed roughly as follows:
The Israeli leader would note that Israel has faced attacks from Lebanese territory since the second week of October, which have caused some 100,000 Israelis to flee the border area. Israel has no choice – absolutely no choice – but to demand that these attacks cease. If the Lebanese government does not rein in the Hezbollah militia carrying out the attacks, Israel will be forced to do so. The results will not be pretty, as they are not pretty in Gaza.
At this point, though, the Israeli leader should clarify with great precision and emphasis that Israel has absolutely no enmity toward Lebanon and wishes Lebanese people nothing but peace (and from years of leading coverage of the Middle East, I know that the Lebanese people mostly feel the same). The PM should emphasize that Israel also has no territorial or other claim, and any military occupation of the past was purely the result of fear of attack – as the coming one would be.
Indeed, he or she would say, Israel is willing to offer an open-ended guarantee of non-belligerency, and preferably, indeed, a peace treaty. For this, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of 2006 would have to be implemented, which calls for the removal of Hezbollah from the border area, asserts that the Lebanese government should have a monopoly of power, and bans all weapons’ sales to any militia in the country. Lebanon itself ratified this resolution.
At this point, the Israeli leader might shock the world by adding that Israel is prepared to discuss handing over to Lebanon, as a sign of good faith, the so-called Mount Dov (Shaba Farms) area, eight square miles of hills with a tiny Arab population running along the Golan Heights and now controlled by Israel. It has no value for Israel yet has been used as a transparent pretext by Hezbollah to justify its aggression.
If Hezbollah claims a victory, let it – because that might help the group find a graceful way to melt away, with some armed elements perhaps integrating into the Lebanese army. All of that will be for the peace negotiations between Israel and Lebanon.
Israel might also add that, as a sign of its further goodwill, it would be willing to help engineer and participate in a massive international aid package for Lebanon to help it build state capacity and absorb and resettle some of the almost two million Syrian refugees. The Shi’ite south, after years of neglect by both the government and abuse by Hezbollah, is in real disrepair.
What does Israel really have to lose? It doesn’t want the Shaba Farms. And it really seeks only peace with Lebanon, against which it has no claims – as most of the world’s news consumers almost surely do not know. Most world leaders would support it; even public opinion would support it.
In Lebanon, there will be a clamor for the government to engage with the Israeli offer. It will come from Hezbollah’s home turf among the country’s Shi’ites as well. If Hezbollah demands a role in the talks, Israel should agree. Why not? It is not a perfect world.
By seizing the initiative and presenting a moderate, reasoned, and conciliatory position, Israel would help repair the damage it has done to itself in Gaza. It would finally be disappointing Iran instead of unwittingly doing its bidding.
Why does Israel not do things this way? Most of what I’ve outlined is in fact in the Israeli consensus – even, very quietly, the element of the Shaba Farms. Surely critics will say everything is known, and there is no one to talk to. They should think again,
As someone who was a journalist and is now in PR, I could assure them that such stinginess with messaging is no way to make news and no way to win hearts and minds. It is also no way to avoid war and no way to make peace.
The writer was the regional chief of AP in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, chaired the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and authored two books on Israel. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.
Comments are closed.