The Internationalization Combo
The looming internationalization of the war in Lebanon is also a tool for it. Therefore, this is exactly the time to ensure that we are not creating again, with our own hands, a multinational mechanism that will allow its survival.
Israel's military strength forces its enemies to be creative. This is natural. Anyone who struggles to deal with fighter jets, tanks, and shadow warriors will always find themselves operating in parallel arenas and using "soft" tools to weaken their opponent. Within that IDF-bypassing arsenal are awareness campaigns or legal lawsuits to label us as an "apartheid state." And there is another tool there, political and relatively elusive. Its name is "internationalization." These days it is being used in Gaza, but without us noticing, it may emerge in Lebanon.
Simply put, internationalization is the integration of international actors into the decision-making, operational, and oversight mechanisms of a particular conflict. The logic behind it: more parties bring more knowledge and resources, which increases the probability of agreements and calm. This is, without a doubt, a very "clean" definition, because every player in the equation has their own interest. This is logical, but it is important to understand the motive of our enemies to "internationalize" confrontations with us: when there is no physical way to deal with the IDF, internationalization is another channel to delay it, to recover under the auspices of multinational processes that require a truce, and along the way to receive merit points for "cooperation."
On the other hand, the involved countries want to strive for quick solutions because their reputation is being tested. Systematic clearing of terrorist infrastructure, slow de-radicalization processes, or a grinding confrontation with terrorist nests on the ground — these require time. Sometimes too much. And sometimes, that is exactly what the other side wanted. The result could be Israeli paralysis, and the survival or relevance of the enemy under the auspices of international mechanisms. Example: The Security Council, which struggles with dismantling Hamas and a central member of which is the financier of the massacre, Qatar.
But the truth is that in relative silence, even in the north, Israel is on the fast track to internationalizing the conflict. The direct discourse with Lebanon began with historical declarations of longing for peace but is already barely making headlines. And yet, various reports herald the establishment of an international verification committee that will ensure Hezbollah is disarmed in the pilot zones as a condition for the IDF's withdrawal. Lebanese officials were quick to declare that there is an agreement on a list of countries from which the US will choose the committee members. The pilot zones have also already been defined. And if this starts to feel like UNIFIL, a classic illustration of a failed international mechanism, it is no coincidence. After 50 years — the same sound, the same taste.
This does not mean that international involvement is necessarily a bad thing. Israel does not have the ability to save Lebanon from Hezbollah alone. In this sense, it is a required and necessary multi-state move. The point is that its imprecise design could turn a process with positive intentions into a political slowing weapon against Israel. A multitude of players, including problematic elements, and a lack of strict adherence on our part to Israeli interests (such as withdrawal in exchange for demilitarization, and not the other way around) — are the perfect recipe for inefficient processes in the worst case, and harmful processes in an even worse case.
Hezbollah may be opposing the understandings with Israel, but that is only half the story, because the looming internationalization is also a tool for it. Therefore, this is exactly the time to ensure that we are not creating again, with our own hands, a multinational mechanism that will allow its survival. Any arrangement within it, any company in it, any condition it contains — must assume that Hezbollah sees it as a weapon to delay the IDF and take over from within. And Israel, through the negotiating team that has already proven itself, must make it clear to its partners that internationalization is a means and not an end. That it is welcome, as long as we do not sacrifice our achievements for the sake of applause from the world.
