Analysis | The Senior Minister's Major Mistake - and the Error That Could Lead to War in Lebanon
why Israel should reconsider its diplomatic approach in Lebanon and explore the possibility of broad international cooperation to achieve a stable resolution in the north
Dan Arkin
| 23/06/2024
Photo: Elad Malka
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant's negative reaction to French President Emanuel Macron's proposal to establish a trilateral forum to ease tensions in Lebanon was a hasty response. The French President suggested creating an Israeli-French-American forum to mediate the tensions in Lebanon. The Defense Minister knows that if war is not the outcome, one of the only logical solutions is American-French-Israeli cooperation to try to achieve a resolution in Lebanon and prevent war on the northern front.
The Minister of Defense knows better than anyone what the meaning of a comprehensive war in Lebanon entails for Israeli homeland security, angered by Hezbollah's thousands of rockets. He also understands what such a war would mean for Lebanon's future. Gallant is part of a government that for years has warned that the address in Lebanon is its seated government in Beirut, not just the terrorist organization within it, Hezbollah. There is no need to specify; one can only speculate what Israel is preparing for Lebanon in terms of water, electricity, transportation, ports, energy, and more, should a comprehensive war break out.
Therefore, there was no need to escalate words and almost create a diplomatic crisis with France. Indeed, the American envoy, Amos Hochstein, is already in the region and expressed that civilians are suffering, and the solution lies in diplomacy. "The United States seeks to prevent an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah," said President Biden's envoy.
Israel has a long history with France. Paris severed ties with Israel following the Six-Day War. Remembered all too well, and not for the better, was President Charles de Gaulle's statement about the Jewish people, in which he remarked, "Israel is arrogant, sure of itself, and domineering." Jumping ahead several decades: Specifically after the events of October 7th, France decided to prevent Israeli companies from presenting at the important Eurosatory defense exhibition. Additionally, a district court, in response to a Palestinian appeal, added a sin to a crime and prohibited anyone associated with Israeli security companies from entering the exhibition grounds.
Years before all of this, there was a sweet honeymoon period between Israel and France – which provided us with Mystère and Mirage aircraft, assisted in building the Dimona nuclear facility, and supplied missile boats to the Israeli Navy. However, an embargo was imposed, and we sadly returned the boats home on Christmas Eve.
However, in diplomacy, there's no room for such childish games. Did Macron irritate Gallant? Does France annoy many Israelis? Diplomacy isn't a recipe for preserving national sensitivity but rather a business of give and take. Interests. Just in high and refined diplomatic language.
At this very moment, as the north is ablaze, residents are evacuated, homes are destroyed, livelihoods are lost, and no one is picking cherries, the Israeli government faces a decision - arrangement or war. This interim path is now revealed before us every day and every hour, from Metula to Rosh Hanikra, across its entire length and breadth.
ebanon is not Gaza. In Lebanon, a terrorist organization, almost a well-armed militia, Hezbollah, is a member of the Lebanese parliament. Above it, there is a state with government institutions, leadership, parliament, and an army. These have relinquished their land to a terrorist organization, and Lebanon may pay heavy prices as a result.
Two major powers have deep interests in Lebanon: the United States and France. The U.S. views Lebanon as a strategic corner with gas resources, a geographic location between Syria, Israel, and Egypt, relatively close to Russia/Ukraine and the Black Sea, and a country influenced by Iran's proxies. France holds a longstanding sentiment as a protector of French interests in the region, if anything remains of that legacy. Where are the days when Beirut was defined as the Paris of the Levant?
After the conclusion of such or another round of fighting in Gaza, attention will turn to Lebanon. Phase one in the northern direction must be about order, planning, stabilization, UN Resolution 1701, all viable options to prevent a war between the IDF and Hezbollah, which would be more severe than Gaza, as senior officials promise. The option of war in Lebanon is phase two, involving (again) entry into Lebanon, (again) bloody battles and crazy drives on Lebanon's twisting roads by armed elements and ambushes, with rockets and noise in the north of the country, and maybe even in its center.
Can Washington, Paris, Israel, Beirut, and Hezbollah be trusted to achieve order and ensure a viable future coexistence between Hezbollah and Israel in the north? The Western world today refuses to confront terrorist organizations. Western powers have previously clashed with Nazism, communism in the Far East, ISIS, and al-Qaeda. Today, they maintain a "boots on the ground" policy. Ukraine and Israel are involved in warfare and receive significant military and economic aid from the United States, European countries, and others. Not soldiers. Even Israel's strong friendships worldwide refuse direct military confrontation with terrorist organizations and with a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran.
An unusual encouragement was recorded on April 13th, when a coalition of Western and Arab states took part in an operation to assist Israel in successfully thwarting its first direct Iranian attack. By the way, France also participated in this operation, and Defense Minister Gantz is familiar with the details.
Looking at a solution on the northern front requires significant thought, planning, and diplomacy to push Hezbollah away from Israel's border, reclaim Israel's security zone beyond the northern border, and repatriate residents within a framework of political order. Washington seeks to strengthen Lebanon's army. Why not expand efforts for a regional solution, rallying additional countries beyond the United States and France for this mission?
There is talk of Saudi Arabia and the Abraham Accords countries having a future role in Gaza's governance, in a more distant future resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why aren't Western countries, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt involved in seeking stability in Lebanon? Iran, Turkey, Russia, and China will not be content.
The recommended approach is to think outside the box, to think far ahead. A solution in Lebanon is linked to a solution in Gaza. Therefore, comprehensive solutions with both old and new partners for Israel in the arena are desirable. To engage with everyone, to innovate, to be the first to propose practical ideas to prevent war.
why Israel should reconsider its diplomatic approach in Lebanon and explore the possibility of broad international cooperation to achieve a stable resolution in the north
Photo: Elad Malka
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant's negative reaction to French President Emanuel Macron's proposal to establish a trilateral forum to ease tensions in Lebanon was a hasty response. The French President suggested creating an Israeli-French-American forum to mediate the tensions in Lebanon. The Defense Minister knows that if war is not the outcome, one of the only logical solutions is American-French-Israeli cooperation to try to achieve a resolution in Lebanon and prevent war on the northern front.
The Minister of Defense knows better than anyone what the meaning of a comprehensive war in Lebanon entails for Israeli homeland security, angered by Hezbollah's thousands of rockets. He also understands what such a war would mean for Lebanon's future. Gallant is part of a government that for years has warned that the address in Lebanon is its seated government in Beirut, not just the terrorist organization within it, Hezbollah. There is no need to specify; one can only speculate what Israel is preparing for Lebanon in terms of water, electricity, transportation, ports, energy, and more, should a comprehensive war break out.
Therefore, there was no need to escalate words and almost create a diplomatic crisis with France. Indeed, the American envoy, Amos Hochstein, is already in the region and expressed that civilians are suffering, and the solution lies in diplomacy. "The United States seeks to prevent an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah," said President Biden's envoy.
Israel has a long history with France. Paris severed ties with Israel following the Six-Day War. Remembered all too well, and not for the better, was President Charles de Gaulle's statement about the Jewish people, in which he remarked, "Israel is arrogant, sure of itself, and domineering." Jumping ahead several decades: Specifically after the events of October 7th, France decided to prevent Israeli companies from presenting at the important Eurosatory defense exhibition. Additionally, a district court, in response to a Palestinian appeal, added a sin to a crime and prohibited anyone associated with Israeli security companies from entering the exhibition grounds.
Years before all of this, there was a sweet honeymoon period between Israel and France – which provided us with Mystère and Mirage aircraft, assisted in building the Dimona nuclear facility, and supplied missile boats to the Israeli Navy. However, an embargo was imposed, and we sadly returned the boats home on Christmas Eve.
However, in diplomacy, there's no room for such childish games. Did Macron irritate Gallant? Does France annoy many Israelis? Diplomacy isn't a recipe for preserving national sensitivity but rather a business of give and take. Interests. Just in high and refined diplomatic language.
At this very moment, as the north is ablaze, residents are evacuated, homes are destroyed, livelihoods are lost, and no one is picking cherries, the Israeli government faces a decision - arrangement or war. This interim path is now revealed before us every day and every hour, from Metula to Rosh Hanikra, across its entire length and breadth.
ebanon is not Gaza. In Lebanon, a terrorist organization, almost a well-armed militia, Hezbollah, is a member of the Lebanese parliament. Above it, there is a state with government institutions, leadership, parliament, and an army. These have relinquished their land to a terrorist organization, and Lebanon may pay heavy prices as a result.
Two major powers have deep interests in Lebanon: the United States and France. The U.S. views Lebanon as a strategic corner with gas resources, a geographic location between Syria, Israel, and Egypt, relatively close to Russia/Ukraine and the Black Sea, and a country influenced by Iran's proxies. France holds a longstanding sentiment as a protector of French interests in the region, if anything remains of that legacy. Where are the days when Beirut was defined as the Paris of the Levant?
After the conclusion of such or another round of fighting in Gaza, attention will turn to Lebanon. Phase one in the northern direction must be about order, planning, stabilization, UN Resolution 1701, all viable options to prevent a war between the IDF and Hezbollah, which would be more severe than Gaza, as senior officials promise. The option of war in Lebanon is phase two, involving (again) entry into Lebanon, (again) bloody battles and crazy drives on Lebanon's twisting roads by armed elements and ambushes, with rockets and noise in the north of the country, and maybe even in its center.
Can Washington, Paris, Israel, Beirut, and Hezbollah be trusted to achieve order and ensure a viable future coexistence between Hezbollah and Israel in the north? The Western world today refuses to confront terrorist organizations. Western powers have previously clashed with Nazism, communism in the Far East, ISIS, and al-Qaeda. Today, they maintain a "boots on the ground" policy. Ukraine and Israel are involved in warfare and receive significant military and economic aid from the United States, European countries, and others. Not soldiers. Even Israel's strong friendships worldwide refuse direct military confrontation with terrorist organizations and with a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran.
An unusual encouragement was recorded on April 13th, when a coalition of Western and Arab states took part in an operation to assist Israel in successfully thwarting its first direct Iranian attack. By the way, France also participated in this operation, and Defense Minister Gantz is familiar with the details.
Looking at a solution on the northern front requires significant thought, planning, and diplomacy to push Hezbollah away from Israel's border, reclaim Israel's security zone beyond the northern border, and repatriate residents within a framework of political order. Washington seeks to strengthen Lebanon's army. Why not expand efforts for a regional solution, rallying additional countries beyond the United States and France for this mission?
There is talk of Saudi Arabia and the Abraham Accords countries having a future role in Gaza's governance, in a more distant future resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why aren't Western countries, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt involved in seeking stability in Lebanon? Iran, Turkey, Russia, and China will not be content.
The recommended approach is to think outside the box, to think far ahead. A solution in Lebanon is linked to a solution in Gaza. Therefore, comprehensive solutions with both old and new partners for Israel in the arena are desirable. To engage with everyone, to innovate, to be the first to propose practical ideas to prevent war.
