Israel retaliates against Hezbollah
Three days after the deadly attack on the Golan Heights, Israel has attacked a suburb of Beirut. According to the Israeli army, a Hezbollah military commander - Fuad Shukr - was the target. It is not yet clear whether he survived. Hamas has also accused Israel of killing its political leader Ismail Haniya in an airstrike in Tehran.
Key figure apparently dead
Israel's military has delivered a major blow, explains Avvenire:
“Fuad Shukr, the military adviser to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, was in the crosshairs. Sources in Beirut confirm that, contrary to what was claimed after the operation, Shukr did not survive. However, international observers are still waiting for hard evidence. The man also known as Hajj Mohsin was regarded by Israeli intelligence as the head of Hezbollah's precision missile project. He was also wanted by the US for his role in the 1983 bombing of the US Marines barracks in Beirut, in which 241 Americans and 56 French paratroopers were killed.”
Hopefully score has been settled
La Stampa describes the mood in Beirut the morning after the attack:
“The residents of Beirut are hoping that the attack will be seen as decisive; in other words, that Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, who was hit by the bombing, will be considered sufficiently important by the Israeli leadership to compensate for the deaths of the twelve Druze children killed in the bloodbath. ... An eye for an eye can also take weight and not just numbers into account.”
On a knife edge
Večernji list fears the conflict will spread:
“Although the US has warned Benjamin Netanyahu against attacking Beirut, yesterday it sided with Israel as usual despite the attack on the Beirut suburb. US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said that the US would protect Israel from an attack by Hezbollah. This statement carries considerable weight and signals the possibility of a regional war. Iran, Syria, the Houthis in Yemen and Iraqi militias have threatened to enter the conflict if an open war breaks out between Israel and Lebanon. The situation is tense and the international community is calling for restraint and diplomatic solutions to prevent further escalation.”
Israel and Lebanon can reach agreement
Despite everything, El Periódico de Catalunya holds out hope:
“Since 7 October, Israel and Hezbollah have been playing a cat-and-mouse game aimed at reaffirming their mutual deterrence capability. ... The Shia militia has around 150,000 rockets capable of targeting Israel's entire territory. ... Its combat experience is proven. ... There are sections of the Israeli government that want open up a new front and extend the conflict to deal a coup de grace to Hezbollah, a close ally of the Iranian regime. ... Although the drums of war are beating again, Israel and Lebanon have shown in the past that they are capable of reaching an agreement if the situation requires it. This is what happened two years ago when they reached a compromise on their maritime borders in order to exploit gas fields in the Mediterranean.”
Ceasefire essential
Sintija Broka, Head of the Middle East Research Programme at the Latvian Insitute of Foreign Affairs, calls for a ceasefire agreement in TVNET:
“As long as Israel continues to kill civilians in both Gaza and the West Bank, the support fronts will continue to operate, as we saw recently with the houthi drone attacks in Tel Aviv. A ceasefire and an end to the Gaza war are critical issues for reconciliation between Israel and the members of the Iranian 'axis of resistance', particularly the Houthi group in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon. ... Without a ceasefire agreement, we will see a further escalation between Israel and pro-Iranian groups in the region.”
Hubris would be fatal
If Israel opens a second front now there is a real danger that it could end up fighting for its very existence, the Süddeutsche Zeitung warns:
“Israel has never lost a war in its history, because ultimately, however volatile the political situation, it has always been able to accurately gauge its military capacities. This time the volatile political situation could well overstretch its military might. That would be the fatal consequence of a hubris which has already brought death and destruction in the Gaza Strip but no end to the war of terror. The Yom Kippur war in 1973 ended after 20 days in a military and territorial deadlock. Today a war on two or more fronts against heavily armed terrorist militias would have only one loser: Israel.”
Dangerous spiral of violence
Netanyahu could once again see an opportunity to move forward, analyses political scientist Joana Ricarte in Público:
“This terrible event comes at a time when Netanyahu is increasingly under pressure from all sides to stop his inexplicable prevarications and finally agree to a ceasefire that would bring the Israeli hostages home and bring some relief to the Palestinians who are suffering terribly in Gaza. And again there is a last-minute twist for Netanyahu. ... There is already talk of an attack on Beirut airport and the region's harbours. ... The Middle East has never been so close to escalation.”
Washington wants to avoid a new front
The last thing the US wants now is an escalation, emphasises the web portal Capital:
“The fact that Washington is eyeing this prospect with suspicion and calling for restraint can be explained by its desire, in the middle of the US election campaign, to close the Gaza front instead of opening a second front that risks drawing American forces into the conflict. Since the 33-Day [Lebanon War] in 2006, Hezbollah has already shown that it is capable of meeting the Israeli army on equal terms, for example by blocking its advance on land. And it's safe to assume that its arsenal and combat capabilities have improved considerably since then.”
The West's Iran policy is key
For Berlingske, peace hangs on Tehran being kept in check:
“With regard to Hezbollah, the West needs to consider upping the pressure on both Iran and Hezbollah to counter the real threat. There are signs that many Arab countries would be willing to make peace with Israel once the war in Gaza is over. Especially if there is also a prospect of improved conditions for the Palestinians including a state of their own. But the Arab countries might hesitate if Iran's power remains so massive. The West would be wise to take a harder line on Hezbollah and Iran. Because Hamas is only one part of a larger problem.”
Don't leave mediation to China
China wants to be perceived as peacemaker, but is also pursuing its own agenda, Turun Sanomat warns:
“Peace in the Middle East is still not in sight, but the international community must continue its efforts to demand it. A glimmer of hope comes from reports that the long-term Palestinian rival fractions, Hamas and the more moderate Fatah, are advocating unity instead of division. It was China who midwifed this declaration. ... But the role of mediator in international security policy cannot be left to China alone, because it has a vested interest in increasing its influence at the expense of Europe.”
A trap
Israel is being pushed into invading, warns La Repubblica:
“Defence Minister Gallant says it is essential to eliminate the Hezbollah threat once and for all, and a section of the military agrees with him. ... They believe that Iran's Lebanese allies are pursuing a successful strategy aimed at wearing down the forces of the Jewish state. ... Ultimately, the aim of this manoeuvre is to push the Israelis into an invasion, draw them into the crossfire of the enemy positions and secure the solidarity of the Arab world.”
Ayatollahs pursuing domestic interests
Israel-based political scientist Abbas Gallyamov points on Facebook to a domestic factor in Iran:
“The Iranian Ayatollahs - who are behind Hezbollah - are now more interested than ever in aggravating the situation on the Israeli front. They have just had a modernising reformist elected as president. ... The best way to put someone like that in his place is to have him immediately take a 'patriotic' position before he can think about rebelling. That requires war.”
A paradoxical war
De Standaard points out that Druze youths were the victims of the attack on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights:
“The Druze belong to the Shiite branch of Islam, just like Hezbollah and Iran. In other words, Hezbollah has hit the very land and people it claims to want to liberate from Israeli occupation. ... Israel's demand for harsh reprisals is being made in the name of victims from the Arab population in the occupied territories.”
The military alone can't create peace
Israel must do everything to prevent a war on two fronts, urges the Stuttgarter Zeitung:
“For its own security, Israel finally needs a plan for a political solution in the Gaza Strip that can end the war there. ... Once a viable ceasefire has been established there, Israel must neuturalise Hezbollah with a skillful combination of military reaction and political action. The same goes for Israel's northern border: the military alone cannot establish peace. Hezbollah cannot be destroyed. But it's questionable whether the Netanyahu government possesses the requisite political wisdom.”
Threat from Hezbollah ignored for too long
The Daily Telegraph angrily points to the double standards in play:
“It is telling that when Israel claims to be targeting Hamas positions in Gaza it is condemned if there are civilian casualties. Yet there are no demonstrations in the streets against Hezbollah or its paymasters in Tehran, another example of the double standards seen in the response to October 7. ... There are some inside Israel who say both Hamas and Hezbollah need to be dealt with if the country is to be secure. Yet the prospect of a war spreading across the Middle East to the Gulf will alarm foreign governments who have turned a blind eye to the threat from Hezbollah for too long.”
Nothing but rhetoric from Europe
So far, only Washington has endeavoured to find a solution to the escalating conflict in the region, writes Sol:
“Iran is keeping Lebanon forever on the brink of war. The only reason they are not going any further is because they are afraid of Lebanon becoming another Gaza. The administration of Joe Biden and Antony Blinken has done everything it can to resolve this war and even this conflict. ... But not a single coherent, sustainable and viable peace plan has come from Europe. Just rhetoric!”