Why Does Lebanon Allow Israel to Attack Its Cities Targeting Hezbollah?

The question of why Lebanon allows Israel to attack its cities targeting Hezbollah is a complex one, rooted in regional politics, proxy conflicts, and geopolitical realities. This analysis delves into the historical context, current dynamics, and the implications of such actions.

Proxy Wars and Self-Defense Claims

Israel consistently portrays its actions as acts of self-defense and claims that it only reacts to Hezbollah's aggressive acts. However, a deeper examination reveals that Israel often uses these pretextual attacks to maintain a dominant position in the region. By provoking hostile actions, Israel creates a narrative that justifies continued military intervention, thereby perpetuating a cycle of conflict.

Lebanon, on the other hand, finds itself caught in a complex web of regional alliances and pressures. While Lebanon may not willingly allow Israel to attack its cities, the country's geopolitical alignment frequently means it must endure such actions. Hezbollah, acting as a proxy for Iran, often engages in aggressive acts which Israel then uses to justify its interventions.

Historical Context and Current Dynamics

The conflict between Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah has deep historical roots. Lebanon, historically, has been a key battleground in the proxy wars between regional powers. The country's strategic location and complex political landscape have made it a prime target for foreign intervention. Israel, backed by external support, frequently views Lebanon as an arena where it can assert its dominance and influence the wider Middle East.

Lebanon's current state, dominated by Hezbollah, adds another layer of complexity. Hezbollah, a Shia armed group, operates as a quasi-state within the state, with significant influence over the government and the military. This has led to a situation where Lebanon's actions and policies are heavily influenced by Hezbollah's interests.

The Hezbollah Threat and Israeli Positions

Israel argues that Hezbollah poses a significant threat to its national security, engaging in a continuous stream of missile attacks since October 8, 2023. Israel maintains that these attacks constitute a violation of international law and humanitarian norms, citing the use of human shields. According to international rules of war, Hezbollah can be held 100% responsible for any civilian casualties resulting from its actions, as it hides military combatants among civilian populations.

Israel's position is further bolstered by its argument that Lebanon is unable to control Hezbollah's actions. In fact, the Lebanese government's inability to exert control over this powerful militant group is a source of frustration for many within the country. This has led to widespread resentment and a sense of helplessness among the Lebanese population.

Lebanon's Weakness and Dependence on Hezbollah

Lebanon's weak and disintegrated state apparatus has made it increasingly dependent on Hezbollah. The group has effectively taken control of many aspects of the country, including the security sector, thus undermining the national government's authority. This dependence leaves Lebanon vulnerable to regional power plays and interventions, such as those by Israel.

Furthermore, Lebanon's international stance, particularly its calls for UN intervention, often comes across as a desperate cry for help rather than a meaningful strategy. The Lebanese government's inability to effectively challenge Israel's actions on its own terms reflects the broader failures of the Lebanese political system and institutional capacity.

Conclusion

The question of why Lebanon allows Israel to attack its cities targeting Hezbollah is not merely a matter of will but deeply entrenched within the country's complex political and security dynamics. While Lebanon may not willingly permit such attacks, the reality of a Hezbollah-influenced government and an inherently weak state apparatus leaves it vulnerable to external pressures. The situation underscores the broader issues of proxy wars and the challenges of maintaining national sovereignty in a deeply divided and conflict-ridden region.