With Gaza in the global spotlight, expect Israel to turn the heat on Hezbollah

The Israeli government appears to see renewed war with Hezbollah as a chance to further its interests. AFP

Israel finds itself in need of diverting global attention away from its atrocities in Gaza. Enter Hezbollah. The Israeli government appears to see renewed war with the Lebanese group as a chance to further its interests, pretexting the latter’s refusal to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese state as it previously pledged.

The timing is driven by several factors.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has grown weary of waiting for Beirut to fulfil its promise of exclusive state control over arms, and it might be ready to endorse any Israeli decision, regardless of its severity. Another factor is Iran’s unwillingness to enter a direct war with Israel on Hezbollah’s behalf.

Indeed, Tehran is both preoccupied with the fallout from the recent US and Israeli strikes and worried about another wave of attacks in the near future. Still, it refuses to abandon its strategy of using armed regional proxies as bargaining chips in potential negotiations with Washington.

Tensions between the US and Iran are thus escalating – manifested through American sanctions, Iranian threats and Israeli war preparations. Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Yemen are on high alert, and the wider Iranian “Axis of Resistance” is watching events closely, from Iraq to Gaza.

Israel has zero tolerance regarding Hezbollah’s arsenal. It has convinced the Trump administration that if the Lebanese government fails to implement its disarmament pledge, Israel has no choice but to press ahead with its war on the group.

Meanwhile, the international conference on the two-state solution – co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France at the UN – might have angered Iran. The Islamic Republic’s ideology rejects the two-state solution, with its doctrine calling for Israel’s destruction. Moreover, the conference’s show of global support for the Palestinian Authority as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people was also a collective cry against Hamas, a key player in Iran’s axis.

US 'essential actor' to bring peace to Middle East, says Saudi Foreign Minister

01:26

Just as Israel is indifferent to the civilian toll in Gaza, Iran appears unbothered by Palestinian suffering, particularly as long as Hamas remains faithful to the axis.

Mr Trump was recently forced to acknowledge the human-made famine in Gaza, having previously denied this reality. While he didn’t initially act against Israel, which is enacting a policy of starvation in the enclave, he spoke about it after parts of his Maga political base pressed him to intervene to end the humanitarian catastrophe. This was accompanied by a different kind of global political pressure as Mr Trump was challenged by European and non-European allies who participated in the two-state solution conference and endorsed its final communique charting a path towards a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

There are concerns over possible vindictive responses from Mr Trump, particularly if he feels isolated on the international stage. There is unease over his administration sanctioning the PA’s leadership, which the latter says is a form of punishment for seeking the establishment of a Palestinian state.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone if Israel seeks to crush everything that emerged from the UN conference. It views the PA as an obstacle to its ambitions of annexing the West Bank. It opposes the near-unanimous international view that Hamas should be dismantled, only because its policy is to fracture Palestinian unity and undermine the PA.

The dilemma facing the US President over the current Israeli government’s extremist policies is his growing global isolation on the Palestine issue. He may still choose to ignore increasing international momentum in favour of a Palestinian state, but it could come at a cost.

Indeed, it was no small development for Saudi Arabia to insist to the international community that it won’t normalise relations with Israel unless a Palestinian state is established. Riyadh’s support for Palestinian statehood gained greater significance when it co-chaired the conference with France. The event brought surprising developments, including the UK’s readiness to recognise the state of Palestine at next month’s UN General Assembly unless Israel changes course from its current approach in Gaza.

Yet a Palestinian state cannot come into being without American backing and Israeli compliance. The UN Security Council has already enshrined the two-state solution in resolutions 1397 and 1515, both supported by Washington. But the roadmap they laid out for Palestinian statehood by 2005 was never implemented and the Trump administration walked back American commitments to those resolutions.

The events in New York could push Mr Trump further into the arms of Israeli extremism and its rejection of the two-state solution. Or he might find himself cornered and unable to punish the broad coalition of states that have challenged him. If so, his policy could shift under pressure.

This would require a deft diplomatic effort to present Mr Trump with ways to align with the emerging consensus without feeling provoked. Countries have bilateral interests and won’t risk undermining relations with Washington solely for the sake of the two-state solution.

Having been increasingly scrutinised by the international community, Israel appears intent on shifting global focus away from Gaza. This is precisely because it intends to continue its policies there. And as long as European states fail to impose tangible punitive measures on Israel, and as long as Mr Trump supports its project of “voluntary displacement”, Israel will continue with its agenda.

Israel’s posture towards Lebanon and Iran, however, is another matter.

There is little international sympathy for Iran’s insistence that Hezbollah retain its arms in defiance of Lebanese sovereignty. Nor is there sympathy for Tehran’s reckless endangerment of the Lebanese people’s safety, security and agency.

There is, likewise, little global sympathy for the Islamic Republic’s stubborn adherence to its triad of strategic doctrines – nuclear capability, ballistic missiles and proxy warfare – without modifications. Thus, should it once again face US or Israeli military strikes, it is unlikely to find many sympathisers.

Tehran is now trapped by American sanctions and the threat of more air strikes. Hezbollah, too, will find no one rushing to its rescue if it falls prey to Israel’s attempts to shift global attention away from Gaza. Both entities will have only themselves to blame.