Israel’s escalating fronts: The case for international intervention

As ceasefire negotiations falter in Doha and Cairo, the focus in Gaza has shifted to border issues, with the most critical point being the control and supervision of the Philadelphi Corridor. Despite immense pressure on Israel to show flexibility on this matter, the Israeli government remains adamant about maintaining direct security oversight, citing concerns about the potential return of border breaches and arms smuggling, issues that are equally sensitive for the United States.

While Israel has assured that it has no intention of maintaining a permanent military presence in the corridor, it insists on retaining security supervision. This insistence suggests that resolving this issue may require the intervention of international mediators to establish a model acceptable to all parties. This is where the idea of internationalising the borders emerges as the only logical and implementable solution, with the presence of international forces coordinating directly with Israel potentially creating the necessary leverage on Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to compel Israel to accept this model. Such an arrangement would shift the responsibility for security guarantees to the international community while ensuring direct coordination lines with Israel remain active.

The proposal to internationalise Gaza’s borders is increasingly viewed as the most realistic and acceptable solution by all parties involved, even if, at this stage, it is limited to the security of the borders. However, this approach could also set the stage for broader international oversight on other contentious issues, such as the post-war administration of Gaza or even future rebuilding efforts.

Meanwhile, the situation on the Lebanese front is steadily escalating, with a gradual escalation of hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah. Recent weeks have seen intense diplomatic efforts to contain the situation, which, while successful in preventing an all-out war, does not appear to be leading to a resolution and increasing the likelihood of further escalation. For Israel, closing this front is not possible without achieving two objectives: first, delivering decisive blows to Hizbullah both in terms of operations and logistics; and second, finding long-term solutions that align with the prevailing approaches on the Gaza front, particularly regarding the presence of international forces.

In Lebanon’s case, international intervention is already in place, but it may require modifications and adjustments. This could involve changes to the mandate and operations of UNIFIL, ultimately making it clear that Israel’s current strategy of opening multiple fronts cannot be resolved without international supervision and without transferring the responsibility of securing these borders to the international community.

It is crucial to acknowledge the unique nature of the Lebanese front for Israel. This confrontation is not merely about securing borders or geographic defence, it is also the most significant front in the broader conflict with Iran. Israel is keen to avoid closing any open battlefront without ensuring the severing of the Beirut-Tehran axis. Any progress towards isolating Lebanon from Iranian influence would be a significant achievement for Israel. This is why Israel has persistently targeted Hizbollah’s leaders and arms depots over the past ten months, aiming to turn Hizbollah into a liability for Lebanon itself. Israel believes that Lebanon cannot emerge from its current compounded crisis without resolving its outstanding issues with Hizbollah.

This isolation could also lead to discussions on practical alternatives to sustain life in Lebanon amid these conditions, from energy issues to the status of Beirut Airport, which remains at the top of Israel’s target list. Israel does not want Beirut Airport to remain under Hizbollah’s influence, which may prompt efforts to isolate it if security threats escalate. Such a scenario could drive the Lebanese to seek alternatives to sustain air traffic, with Rene Mouawad Air Base known as Qlayaat Airport in the north of the country likely becoming a temporary substitute to mitigate the ongoing threats to civil aviation.

The Introduction of internationalisation and military oversight into the Gaza conflict could embolden Israel to accelerate its escalation on the Lebanese front, with likely attacks on a long list of targets that Israel believes cannot be politically settled without confrontation. Israel’s current strategy of opening multiple fronts may eventually lead to international responsibility, essentially transferring the burden of these crises to the international community. This would, in turn, allow Israel to absolve itself of the responsibilities and consequences of initiating these conflicts.