What does Israel's Lebanon offensive portend?
Despite Iran's missile attacks, Israel's airstrikes in southern Lebanon continue and it also launched a ground offensive on Monday night. According to the Israeli military the objective is to carry out 'limited, localised attacks against Hezbollah targets'. Commentators in Europe's press situate the operation in a larger context.
Neighbours also need security
The ground offensive in Lebanon won't bring peace to Israel, says Dagens Nyheter:
“Over the past year, Israel's conduct of the war has all too often seemed to serve the interests of Benjamin Netanyahu rather than those of his own people. The prime minister has rejected a two-state solution with the Palestinians and a role for Fatah in the Gaza Strip. He has consistently opposed a longer ceasefire. ... Nasrallah's death and the offensive against Hezbollah have given Israel's military and intelligence services a boost. ... However, creating the conditions for a new balance in the Middle East that offers security to Israel will also require the willingness to offer security to the Lebanese and Palestinians.”
Such actions are understandable
The Süddeutsche Zeitung shows understanding for Netanyahu's decision to send troops into Lebanon:
“He has to bring 60,000 Israelis who were evacuated from the north back home after a year. Securing this region would be a priority for any leader, regardless of their political affiliation. So to say that Netanyahu only cares about clinging to power is an oversimplification. The Israeli now sees his chance to crush Hezbollah. This is also understandable after four decades of enmity.”
A battle against the hydra
The ground offensive in Lebanon won't be a walk in the park, 24tv.ua concludes:
“Fighting in the highlands, where Hezbollah has an extensive network of bunkers (not in the sand, like Hamas in Gaza, but dug into the hills), is extremely difficult. Hezbollah also still has many missiles and fighters. Many of them have been trained to act autonomously and will be able to continue the resistance for a long time - even if their 'generals' are dead. Moreover, Hezbollah has not abandoned its human shield tactics, which means that there will inevitably be civilian casualties. ... This war will be like a battle against the hydra, with new heads growing for every one that is cut off.”
Hezbollah must go
The West should support Israel's actions, De Telegraaf demands:
“The Shiite terrorist organisation has around 100,000 missiles at its disposal. What target will they be aimed at? Anyone who knows the organisation's goal knows that they are earmarked for the destruction of the Israeli state. ... Hezbollah poses a danger to the stability of the Middle East and a threat to the West. Israel deserves our support in the total destruction of this terrorist organisation. Until then, this proxy will continue to represent Iran's interests.”
New enemy, old mistake
The Times of Malta warns against a repetition of history:
“In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon in the middle of the latter's civil war, imposing a siege on the capital Beirut. ... Not only did the ground invasion result in the death of thousands of civilians, the occupation of Lebanon plunged an already fragile nation into lasting political and economic chaos and led to the birth of Hezbollah, the very group that threatens northern Israel today. ... In 1982, such an operation resulted only in catastrophic results for all concerned – and set in place the conditions for decades of hostilities across the Lebanon-Israel border. A similar offensive today would almost certainly have similar results.”
Washington is powerless
Not even the US can prevent Israel from further escalating the war, writes Público:
“The Netanyahu government does whatever it pleases, it has a strategy that it doesn't want to give up, and the US has taken on this disheartening role: for months it has been appealing to common sense, and sometimes it seems as if it is being listened to. ... But it's not. What has happened in the last few days is paradigmatic ... It's clear that an escalation in the region is in nobody's interest, that it's dangerous, that a ceasefire and serious negotiations are needed. That Israel doesn't seem interested in ending the escalation. And that the US's strategy of appeals without consequences won't achieve anything.”
Next stop Iran?
Israel's plans already go beyond Lebanon, La Repubblica is convinced:
“Two days after the carnage in the kibbutzim, Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel's response to the Hamas attack would 'reshape the Middle East'. A year later, these words are being reread as the key to the next phase of the war. ... Galvanised by the killing of the Hezbollah leader and the resulting restoration of the domestic political consensus, Netanyahu made a surprise address to the Iranian people yesterday: 'There is nowhere in the Middle East Israel cannot reach. When Iran is finally free, and that moment will come a lot sooner than people think, everything will be different.'”
Tehran is already taking precautions
After the assassinations of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has reportedly been moved to a safe place. For T24, this would be an embarrassing admission by Iran, because
“if it's true, then Iran doesn't feel safe from Israel even in its own territory. We know that even before the assassination of Haniyeh Israel carried out operations on Iranian territory, killing a number of people who were allegedly working on the nuclear weapons project. Isn't the news that the Ayatollah has been 'transferred to a secure location' an admission that parts of Iran are not safe from an Israeli attack?”
No shilly-shallying about taking in refugees
Europe must offer protection to Middle East war refugees, the taz demands:
“This also applies to the almost one million registered Syrian refugees and the nearly half a million Palestinian refugees who have sought shelter in Lebanon, with its roughly six million inhabitants. The country is on the verge of collapse. Despite the rise of the far right, which we now see in Austria too, Europe must not hesitate. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine the EU immediately took in millions of Ukrainians as war refugees. Rightly so! Now it must do the same in the case of Lebanon.”