US Mediation With Israel and Lebanon Is Futile and Destructive

The Biden administration maintains the illusion that the nine months of violence between the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and Israel can be de-escalated and defused. The President is keen on preventing the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel from escalating further and engulfing the Middle East in a war. But US planning and thinking about de-escalating and defusing the conflict is pointless and shortsighted.

The administration seeks to configure a new status quo between Israel and Lebanon that cannot be sustained. Future violence is inevitable. If Biden succeeds, the initiator of the conflict — Hezbollah — would go unpunished. The militia would remain unchecked. The reason for the violence at the border would go unaddressed. And by connecting the Hezbollah-Israel conflict to an outcome of the Hamas-Israel conflict, the administration would empower the Lebanese militia.

President Biden dispatched envoy Amos Hochstein to the Middle East after Hezbollah initiated the almost daily cycle of violence with Israel. Hochstein’s shuttle diplomacy has produced several measures to prevent future outbreaks of violence and create greater security for communities inhabiting the border region. A negotiated settlement would entail: 1) officially demarcating the shared Israeli-Lebanese land border with adjustments at 13 disputed locations; 2) deploying additional United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) troops to areas between the Litani River and the Israeli-Lebanese border; 3) deploying the Lebanese army to the Lebanese-Israeli border; and 4) requiring the withdrawal of Hezbollah forces from the Israeli-Lebanese border and relocating them north of the Litani River in Lebanon.

The administration believes the realization of the aforementioned measures is connected to the cessation of violence in Gaza. Witness the words of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on June 12: “Now, there’s no doubt in my mind that the best way to empower a diplomatic solution to the north, Lebanon, is a resolution of the conflict in Gaza and getting the ceasefire. That will take a tremendous amount of pressure out of the system. It will take away a justification that Hizballah has claimed for the attacks it’s engaged in, and, I think, open a pathway to actually resolve this diplomatically.”

Hochstein affirmed Blinken’s statement during his June 19 visit to Beirut.

But the measures and thinking of Hochstein and Blinken are plagued by problems and dangers.

Firstly, the initiator of the conflict at the Israeli-Lebanese border — Hezbollah — would not be a party to an Israeli-Lebanese settlement. As a non-signatory, the militia is not obliged to formally endorse the agreement or maintain adherence to it. Without making Hezbollah accountable to the agreement, future violence is likely.

Why?

History demonstrates that Hezbollah is indifferent to the concerns, interests, and decisions of the Lebanese state. Hezbollah’s agenda always trumps the state.

For example, the militia ignored the government’s policy of disassociation from the Syrian civil war and entered the conflict in 2012. Similar to what Lebanon is currently experiencing with Israeli retaliatory strikes, the country became a victim of violence because of Hezbollah’s self-interest. The militia’s intervention in Syria precipitated several ISIS suicide bombings perpetrated against the Lebanese public. There is no indication that Hezbollah has learned a lesson and would act differently following a Lebanese government decision to enter into a settlement with Israel.

History also demonstrates the inability or unwillingness of the Lebanese state to keep its word and enforce agreements. A notable example is the resolution to the 2006 33-day Israel-Hezbollah war. Despite endorsing UN Resolution 1701, the state failed to fully implement the resolution’s stipulations. Today’s nine-month conflict is a direct result of that failure.

Secondly, a negotiated Israeli-Lebanese settlement allows Hezbollah to effectively go unpunished for starting the conflict. The measures being discussed are not punishments — at best, they are temporary inconveniences. Hezbollah would be required to move its militia north of the Litani River in Lebanon (roughly 12 miles from the Israeli border), while the Lebanese army and more UNIFIL troops will stand between the militia and Israel.

A similar expectation was stipulated after the fighting in 2006. It never happened. Furthermore, if Hezbollah is convinced to relocate its militia, how can anyone guarantee that it will stay behind the Litani River? Or will Hezbollah just launch missiles and drones at Israel from behind the Litani River — over the heads of UNIFIL and the Lebanese army?

Going relatively unpunished also absolves the terrorist militia of responsibility for initiating the latest round of conflict, and leaves Hezbollah undeterred. An absolved and undeterred Hezbollah entails a more empowered militia. The question then becomes when, not if, future violence will occur.

Thirdly, the proposed settlement between Israel and Lebanon would ignore the reason for the latest round of violence. The diplomacy addresses a land dispute between two countries and the relocation of a militia. Neither are central to why violence erupted on October 8.

Hezbollah’s leadership stated that their October 8 and subsequent attacks on Israel are an act of solidarity with Hamas and the Palestinians of Gaza. Hezbollah maintains that it will not relent until the violence ends in Gaza. The militia is attempting to insert itself into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by working to exact leverage or deterrence over fighting between Israel and the Palestinians. The goal is for the Israelis to think twice about responding to Palestinian terrorism and violence in the future because they will be forced to fight on a second front–southern Lebanon. The proposed Israeli-Lebanese settlement does nothing to prevent this new Hezbollah objective.

Lastly, the Biden administration’s pointless diplomacy also has the makings of becoming damaging. Instead of defusing the conflict, it would lay the foundation for future conflict. As demonstrated by Blinken and Hochstein’s words, they are linking the de-escalation of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict to a ceasefire in Gaza. Linking the conflicts plays into the hands of Hezbollah. It empowers the militia by enabling it to claim a victory of sorts — it maintained its pressure on Israel until Israel conceded to a ceasefire. Linkage also enables future Hezbollah aggression against Israel for the sake of solidarity with Hamas and the Palestinians. For example, Hezbollah would be empowered to act if Israel launches a major operation in the West Bank.

US plans to de-escalate and defuse the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah would do little except make a bad situation worse. A US-mediated settlement between the Israeli and Lebanese governments does not prevent future conflict. It would allow Hezbollah, the initiator of the violence, to go unchecked and unpunished while failing to directly address the new objective of Hezbollah’s aggression. Compounding the predicament is their willingness to empower the militia by connecting the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah to a ceasefire in Gaza. The Biden administration’s mediation is proving to be futile and damaging.

Eric Bordenkircher, Ph.D., is a research fellow at UCLA’s Center for Middle East Development. He tweets at @UCLA_Eagle. The views represented in this piece are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of UCLA or the Center for Middle East Development. 

The post US Mediation With Israel and Lebanon Is Futile and Destructive first appeared on Algemeiner.com.