“Limited” is a vague assurance or aspiration, not a definition. How many will be dead in Lebanon by the time Israel’s “limited” ground operation and accompanying strikes are over? More than a thousand have reportedly died in the last fortnight, including women and children. A million people are homeless in a country that was already struggling to function. Far from preventing further conflict, the Israeli ground offensive only paves the way for more violence. As night fell on Tuesday, Iran fired a barrage of missiles at Israel – almost 200, according to Israeli Army Radio – which the Revolutionary Guards described as retaliation for the killing of the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas. At least eight people died when armed gunmen opened fire at a light rail station in Jaffa.
The Israeli operation appeared, at least initially, to be on a smaller scale than many had anticipated. But the impact will not be limited to the Hezbollah fighters it targets. Ordering civilians to leave does not absolve an army of its obligations to them under international law. Israel used the term “limited” during its Rafah operations, yet the outcome there was no different from the devastation seen across Gaza. “Limited” operations, when repeated, become something larger. “Limited” operations undergo mission creep, intentionally or otherwise – and their outcome is not determined by Israel alone. Hezbollah, Iran and others are rethinking the limits that – for entirely self-interested reasons – they had previously set in striking Israel.
This is a new and dangerous moment for Lebanon and the Middle East, yet is grimly reminiscent. Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have no long-term plan in mind, no clear strategy for an exit. The return of Israeli residents to their homes in the north, with Hezbollah pushed above the Litani river as set out in UN resolution 1701, might be enough to win him another election. Whether it is sustainable without an Israeli occupation is another matter.
Perhaps tactical success in decapitating Hezbollah has convinced Israel that this time really is different and that there is no danger of becoming mired in Lebanon again. Perhaps it believes its extraordinary intelligence penetration of the group and surveillance has removed the danger of unwelcome military surprises. Yet the Israel Defense Forces are still fighting in Gaza; they have intensified raids in the West Bank; they have struck Houthi targets in Yemen – including Hodeidah, the port that is essential for aid imports. The Houthis already appear to have resumed attacks on shipping in the Red Sea.
The one thing that could limit this operation would be halting US arms shipments to Israel. Instead, Washington justifies the continued flow by pretending support for an operation that it knows is reckless and that it thought it had averted.
The Israeli prime minister told the United Nations general assembly last week that his country would reshape the Middle East, building a partnership of peace with neighbours. But Saudi Arabia and others have made it clear they cannot and will not pursue normalisation under these circumstances. They are not eager to assist Israel against Iranian missiles again. The Jordanian foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, demanded to know what the Israeli endgame was “other than just wars and wars and wars”. Without a diplomatic process, there are few true limits to this crisis – just a dangerous, fast‑growing, open-ended conflict.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
