简体中文
हिन्दी
Português
Español
U-M policy scholar: Israeli invasion of Lebanon worsens ongoing crises, challenges Harris campaign
EXPERT ANALYSIS
Over the past weeks, the Israeli government bombed parts of Lebanon and launched a ground invasion into the country’s southern region. The espoused purpose of this invasion is to degrade Israel’s longtime enemy, Hezbollah, which had longstanding ties to Hamas.
Megan Stewart, associate professor of public policy at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy, says the Israeli ground invasion will likely further destabilize the region and exacerbate humanitarian crises. Not only is the prospect of military defeat of Hezbollah unlikely, she adds, but a protracted conflict benefits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces legal and domestic challenges.
Stewart, who has conducted research on Hezbollah in Lebanon, offers a primer on the conflict—including what led to the current invasion and attack and where things could go from here:
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is nearly four decades old. Hezbollah emerged in response to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
Since that time, Hezbollah and Israel have repeatedly engaged in battles and conflicts of varying degrees and intensity, most notably in 2006 when Hezbollah is largely viewed as having defeated Israel. Recently, Israel bombed parts of Lebanon where Hezbollah is particularly strong—the southern suburbs of Beirut and the Bekaa—as well as invading the south of Lebanon.
These actions expand the ongoing war in Gaza to a new front and a new country: Lebanon. Hezbollah maintains close ties to Iran, which could also enter a war. Iran recently launched rockets into Israel in retaliation for Israel’s actions in Lebanon.
The widening and prolonging of the war in Gaza to a broader theater has certain benefits for Netanyahu. He faces domestic and legal challenges to his leadership.
Despite a recent boost in popularity, should the war end, recent polls suggest Netanyahu’s government would likely be replaced in elections. Additionally, while Netanyahu faced a pause on a corruption trial due to that war, that trial—slated to begin again in December—could proceed more quickly.
The expansion of the war into Lebanon also presents real challenges to the presidential campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris. Given the close ties between Netanyahu and former President Donald Trump, a Harris defeat would also benefit Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, the intensification and spread of violence in Lebanon have real and devastating consequences for the Lebanese people. Hezbollah maintains an armed wing responsible for many deaths, even collaborating with the Assad regime in Syria.
Nevertheless, for decades, Hezbollah has long supplemented the governance of the Lebanese state with needed, relatively high-quality services upon which many people rely. Hezbollah members also hold elected offices, which means the possibility of a military defeat of Hezbollah is unlikely and will be as challenging—if not more so—as defeating Hamas.
Hezbollah’s governance provision has several consequences for a widening conflict with Israel. Because of a rapid population increase from Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war, the Lebanese state has struggled to meet the population’s basic needs. The additional violence from Israel makes meeting these needs particularly challenging, compounded by the fact that Hezbollah, as one of the primary alternative service providers, is in a weakened position.
All told, Israel’s choice to expand the war into Lebanon will exacerbate the humanitarian needs of people living in Lebanon and prolong an already brutal conflict with an outcome that will largely be unattainable. A drawn-out war may benefit Netanyahu in particular, and could even have implications for the U.S. elections.
