A ground invasion of Lebanon would be a terrible mistake for Israel

In an unprecedented operation, Israel was able to turn handheld pagers and other communications devices used by Hezbollah members into explosive weapons.
In a huge blow to the group, Israel detonated the sabotaged devices and put about 3,000 of its operatives out of commission. Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah described the attack as “harsh and unprecedented.”
Following two days of explosions caused by the booby-trapped devices, Israeli forces intensified their bombing of southern Lebanon. Israel is buttressed and it has been speculated that the attacks on Hezbollah might pave the way for a ground invasion. However, this would be a grave strategic mistake for Israel.
Nasrallah looked pale during his televised speech following the attacks. Despite vowing that Israel would pay the price for its actions, his tone was unusually subdued. Though dogmatic, he is not suicidal. He knows that this is not the time to escalate the conflict. He realizes his house is in a shambles.
The attacks would not have succeeded unless the Israelis had informers inside the organization. The Lebanese people are divided; a majority blame the group for directly involving Lebanon in the wider conflict with Israel.
On the other hand, Hezbollah is now so invested in the conflict that halting its attacks on Israel before a ceasefire agreement in Gaza is in place would be viewed as a total defeat for the group.
Israeli authorities feel emboldened following their successful operation. Previously, there had been discussions about whether or not to launch a ground invasion of Lebanon. When the minister of defense opposed any such wide-scale operation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened to replace him.
Now that Hezbollah is significantly weakened, Israeli authorities might feel encouraged to proceed with a ground operation. From their perspective, it would deliver a decisive knock-out blow on the ground. After all, Hezbollah’s ability to resist a ground attack has been significantly compromised by the events of the last four days. Meanwhile the majority of residents in southern Lebanon have fled their homes and headed north.
The aim of Israeli authorities would be to enter Lebanon and seize and occupy a buffer zone to prevent cross-border attacks and allow displaced residents of northern Israel to return to the homes they have been forced to evacuate.
However, this buffer zone would likely turn out to be a death zone for Israeli soldiers. They occupied such a buffer from 1985 until 2000 and ultimately were forced to withdraw unilaterally. Continual attacks by Hezbollah resulted in such high levels of casualties that the public outcry in Israel eventually forced them to withdraw.
In his speech, Nasrallah said that even if Israel had delivered a blow to his group, it would not achieve its strategic goal of making northern Israel secure enough for its residents to return to their homes. This statement is a clear indication of the state of mind among members of the group; it does not matter how much they suffer as long as the enemy suffers and is prevented from achieving its strategic goals.
The use of violence will not bring safety to the Israelis of Galilee and this is a lesson Israel is likely to learn the hard way if it invades Lebanon.
There are two issues that Israeli authorities do not appear to be taking into consideration. The first is that backing Hezbollah into a corner is not a very smart strategy. A cat that is cornered will lash out at anyone it perceives as a threat, even if they are much stronger.

It would be a blessing in disguise for Hezbollah. It would grant the group a renewed legitimacy.

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

The second issue is the ability of the group to adapt. It is a guerrilla operation and unlike a conventional army it has a flexible structure. Even when 3,000 of its operatives have been injured, many of them blinded, it is always capable of regrouping.
At the beginning of the current conflict Israel targeted group members by identifying and locating them through their cell phones. The group responded by abandoning smart devices in favor of pagers and walkie-talkies, which are less sophisticated and more difficult to detect and access. Israel was able to compromise those as well. However, Hezbollah will find other ways to communicate and reorganize its network, rather quickly. Israel’s technological supremacy is likely to be countered through the use of more primitive and creative alternatives.
Even if Hezbollah’s capabilities are diminished for now, an invasion of Lebanon could still trigger a wider regional war. Israel has been lobbying the US for approval of a limited strike on the country for months. Washington is opposed to such an attack because it is hard to predict how Hezbollah and Iran would respond, and it does not want a regional war to erupt, especially in the run-up to a presidential election.
Now, however, Israel is emboldened. It struck at the very heart of Iran when it assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, in Tehran in July, and there was no significant response. Now it has delivered a strong blow to Hezbollah, weakening the group significantly.
Nevertheless, Israel should not grow overconfident. Hezbollah and Iran might yet strike back if they feel the choice is that or death.
Most importantly, an invasion of Lebanon would bestow on Hezbollah a renewed sense of legitimacy. Prior to May 24, 2000, the date of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, the group enjoyed unanimous domestic support as it was perceived as the resistance fighting a much-loathed occupier. When the Israelis left and Hezbollah became a full-fledged political party, people started questioning its legitimacy as an armed group.
On May 7, 2008, when Hezbollah attacked Beirut and turned its weapons on fellow Lebanese citizens, people further questioned its legitimacy. In 2012, when its members were deployed to Syria, people once again called into question the legitimacy of an armed group that was now protecting a brutal dictator accused of slaughtering his own people.
In 2019, when Hezbollah repressed popular protests against the government, people questioned the legitimacy of an armed group that was now using its weapons to protect a corrupt political class.
But if Israel invades Lebanon, it would be a blessing in disguise for Hezbollah. It would grant the group a renewed legitimacy, help it attract new recruits, and push the Lebanese people once again to rally behind it.
After all, if Lebanon is invaded, the various factions there will have no option but to stand alongside the resistance. This is why the US, which is supposed to be “the adult in the room” in such situations, must make sure it puts enough pressure on Israel to ensure it refrains from an invasion and engages in efforts to reach a diplomatic solution that ends the war on both the Lebanese and Gaza fronts.

• 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.