Lebanon should take up Erdogan’s offer to step in

All eyes are on Lebanon and on Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah is in a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situation. The only scenario that will save the day is third-party involvement.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is on an assassination spree, ordering the killings of Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukr in southern Beirut and Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran as the latter was attending the inauguration of the new president.
Israel claimed that the strike on Lebanon is in response to the killing of 12 children in the Druze town of Majdal Shams in the Golan. Though there has been no independent investigation, Israel swiftly came to the conclusion that Hezbollah was responsible for the deadly rocket attack.
Is this a case of deja vu? In 1982, Israel used an assassination attempt on its ambassador in London as an excuse to invade Lebanon. Israel blamed the Palestine Liberation Organization, though the organization was not behind the attempt. It was Abu Nidal, a splinter group from the PLO. Hence, people in Beirut are worried that the tragic incident in the Druze town might be used as a pretext for an invasion or an attack outside the current rules of engagement.
After Israel’s dual assassinations, it is time for Hezbollah to respond. Hezbollah cannot but respond. The group needs to maintain its prestige, and cannot appear to be cowed by Israel. That would destroy its raison d’etre: resistance against Israel.
However, if Hezbollah responds, Israel will have to respond in turn. Hezbollah’s audience is waiting for a response that will match the narrative. A taxi driver in Beirut told me that Israelis will witness a “painful” response, and the blood of innocent civilians will not go to waste. We are in a situation where neither party wants an escalation, but neither can afford to back down.
What is the solution? Is there a face-saving exit that will allow both parties to resume the diplomatic track? For the Lebanese government, there is an exit plan from this conundrum. The foreign minister or prime minister can call on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s offer.
Erdogan last week suggested that Turkiye could intervene militarily to stop the war in Gaza. He mentioned Azerbaijan and Libya. In both cases, Turkish intervention changed the tide of the conflict. Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid said that “Israel won’t accept threats from a wannabe dictator.” However, Turkish intervention might be what both parties need in order to avoid full-scale war.

The Lebanese government has not played the role it should to save the country. 

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

Hezbollah has said that revenge for the Israeli attack in Beirut is coming, but it will need to wait for the right target opportunity. The US hopes that Hezbollah’s response will be limited, with few casualties, so that both parties can de-escalate. However, there is no guarantee that this will be the forthcoming scenario. Hezbollah might deliver a “painful” response. Then de-escalation would be impossible. Also, the cost would be unbearable for Lebanon. The country cannot tolerate an intensive air campaign. Both parties need to save face, and both have to show they can protect their own people. That is why a third party acting as a buffer is needed.
In previous pieces, I have written that Kosovo succeeded because it had a security guarantor, the US. The different parties respected the ceasefire agreement because no one wanted to confront the US. Here, Turkiye can play the role of guarantor.
However, the problem is that the Lebanese government is not being proactive enough. After the attack on Majdal Shams, Najib Mikati, the caretaker prime minister, issued a statement that reflected the weakness of the government and the helplessness of the Lebanese state. This will encourage Israel to have a free hand in Lebanon. The current government policy has been a non-policy. Its aim has been mainly to float and navigate rather than to make decisions that could put it at odds with domestic parties, or with regional or global powers.
However, in this tense environment, it is the Lebanese government’s responsibility to save the country. It cannot just sit and watch events unfold. The government should ask for Turkiye to deploy in the south, creating a buffer between Hezbollah and Israel. If Turkiye is the security guarantor, residents on both sides of the border could return to their homes, and diplomatic negotiations could resume.
The Turkish presence will be appreciated by both parties, even if in public they claim it is limiting their movement. It will give them a face-saving excuse to de-escalate. From the Lebanese side, Turkiye is a Muslim country that has always supported resistance in Palestine. Both Hezbollah and Turkiye have acknowledged Hamas as a resistance force. From an Israeli perspective, Turkiye is a NATO member, hence a pro-Western power that will not attack Israel.
The Lebanese government has not played the role it should to save the country. The state should take this step. It should call on Erdogan’s offer, and begin lobbying Hezbollah, as well the different factions, to buy into this arrangement. At the same time, it should engage and be proactive with the US to make sure Israel is tamed. The Turkish scenario should be presented as an alternative to a confrontation. The Lebanese government should act quickly as we are running out of time. Once a major escalation takes place, it will be too late to take up Erdogan’s offer.

• Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese nongovernmental organization focused on Track II.