Lebanon-Israel War 2006
Menu and Links
The American Invasion of Iraq: Origins and Mistakes
The American Invasion of Iraq: Constitution and Counterinsurgency
The American Invasion of Iraq: Concluding Remarks
Professor Bashiri on Iran and Central Asia
Blog on Iranian Civilization and American Foreign Policy
Home
Lasting from July 12 until August 14, the Second Lebanon War was initiated by Hezbollah, the Shi’a militant organization in Lebanon that has been heavily supported by Iran. (The Shi’a are the largest ethnic group in Lebanon and have representatives in its cabinet.) Its men crossed the border to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers under the cover of a mortar and rocket attack. A failed Israeli attempt to rescue the kidnapped led to the loss of more Israelis. Israel then launched a massive air and artillery attack against targets throughout Lebanon and blockaded coastal ports and the airport. The Israelis followed this with a ground invasion. Throughout the war, Hezbollah continued to launch rockets at Israel and to attack the invading army. The result was massive loss of life and destruction of property, especially in Lebanon. The war was ended through a Security Council resolution that provided for Israeli evacuation, additional United Nations troops along the border, and provision for Lebanon’s army to finally take control of the border areas (backed by UN troops). Israel gradually withdrew as troops came in.
Previous Lebanese-Israeli Clashes
The war should be seen as the latest chapter in the short violent histories of both countries. Since the 1960s several factions of the Palestinian resistance have mounted attacks against Israel from Lebanon. This led to invasions by Israel in 1978 and 1982. Following this last invasion, Israel established what amounted to a buffer state in extreme southern Lebanon and recruited Lebanese to man its borders. In 1985, a new organization, Hezbollah announced a campaign against Israel and its Lebanese irregulars. Since then Hezbollah continually attacked this state or Israeli territory beyond it, killing or capturing Israelis on occasion. In 2000, Israel tired of maintaining the buffer state. Its army was disbanded and Israel’s army retired across the border. Nevertheless, the attacks continued.
It should be added that while these direct actions between Israel and the Arab resistance went on within Lebanon and along its border a civil war had raged simultaneously between Lebanon’s political-religious factions. This was a major reason for a Syrian intervention that led to its occupying parts of the country for nearly 30 years.
Deeper Historical Background
To understand this tangle of events, we must go back and review Lebanon’s history. After World War I, France was given a mandate to govern what is now Lebanon and Syria. Lebanon was separated from Syria, at least in part, to enable the Christians of the area to have a state in which they would constitute a majority (a majority that now exists only in theory). The Lebanon that they created was crosscut, however, by much more than Christian-Muslim rivalries. Organized ethnic groups, living in their own enclaves, both in the countryside and Beirut, included Maronite Christians, Armenians, Sunni Muslims, Shi’a Muslims, and Druze (a heretical Muslim sect). These groups initially created a constitutional democracy based on a division of power among the major groups. This system was so successful that for many years some political scientists saw it as an example of how to resolve problems of governing multi-ethnic states.
Until the 1970s, because of its mixed nature and relatively small army, Lebanon played little part in the struggles of Israel with its neighbors. Because it did not directly border Israel and the extreme conservatism (in the old sense) of the monarchy, Saudi Arabia also played only an indirect role in the Israel-Palestine struggle. After losing territory in a border struggle with Israel, Syria did not wish to risk further losses by allowing active PLO forces along its small border with Israel. This meant that after Egypt and Jordan reached what amounted to a truce with Israel, Lebanon, with its weak and divided polity, became the only available base from which the PLO could harass Israel. Israel reacted strongly to continued attacks by invading the country in 1978 and 1982. As a result, the PLO was largely destroyed in Lebanon, only to be replaced by the more nationalistic Hezbollah organization whose first objective was to reestablish Lebanese control over their own country and whose second objective was to destroy Israel. In any event, as a model of multiethnic government Lebanon did not survive. What internal peace was secured was attained largely through Syrian occupation, one that has now ended, at least for the moment.
UNIFIL
To further complicate (and placate) the situation, in the late 1970s the United Nations established UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. The force was placed in Lebanon along the border with Israel. The objective was to secure the border and keep the warring groups apart. In relative peacetime, it had some successes, but when violence escalated, its forces were caught helplessly in the middle. During the 1982 Israeli invasion, for example, UNIFIL was simply by-passed. During the 2006 war, UNIFIL had little or no control over the violence. However, earlier, when the Israelis had decided to disband its quasi-state in southern Lebanon and return its forces to Israel, UNIFIL played a positive role in helping the process. Again, after the 2006 fighting, UNIFIL was reinforced by more troops, making it possible that it will play a more active role in the future.
Conclusion
Seen from this perspective, the 2006 war in Lebanon was conceivable only in a state unable, even with the additional of international forces, to control its own territory. In 2006, Israel attacked the people of Lebanon, as well as the Hezbollah that commingled its men and materiel with the people. Their objective was ostensibly to force the return of the captured Israelis. But they also thought they must seize the opportunity to destroy Hezbollah and compel Beirut to finally assume control over its own territory. At the same time, Beirut was reluctant to act against Hezbollah for three reasons. The indecisive government found its hard to overcome its internal divisions - some members of the cabinet were themselves Hezbollah. It commanded a weak army with divided loyalties. And the people of most factions had turned against the Israelis because of their targeting of civilians in 2006 and in previous invasions. On the one hand, Hezbollah represented only the Shi’a faction in Lebanon, Lebanon’s largest faction but still a minority. The Shi’a were the faction most deeply concerned with the existence of Israel. On the other hand, Hezbollah was attacking what many Lebanese of all factions considered the neighborhood bully.The end result was large-scale destruction and loss of life in Lebanon and considerable loss of property and life in Israel. Hezbollah did what it felt it had to do. Israel did what it felt it had to do. Many top Israeli leaders have thought, and continue to think, that only determined attacks against those who threaten Israel make possible the country’s continued existence. They simply could not allow their enemies to capture Israelis or continue to make rocket attacks on the country. In the wider Middle East, many felt that Hezbollah had won this round by its persistence in attack and the failure of Israelis to overcome its forces. Marginally, Israel ended up somewhat weaker than it had been before the war, Hezbollah somewhat stronger. But in the end, the wars of Israel with its neighbors are reminiscent of the trench warfare of World War I: neither side could give way, so everyone suffered.
Sources:
The best general on-line reference is Wikipedia.
On the Lebanese model for communal government, see Osama Abi-Mershed ,”Consociationism and Democracy Consolidation: Prospects for Change in Lebanon”, Institute of World Affairs. His references provide a broader entree to the history of the approach.
