The Lebanon Wars of 2024, Who Won, Who Lost, Costs and Implications

Many in Lebanon have been quick to declare winners and losers in the recent war. Some have claimed that Israel won the war by obliterating Hezbollah's leadership, and destroying much of the Dahyeh, the Bekaa, and the South. Those who oppose this view see things differently. While they are forced to recognize Hezbollah's losses, they argue that it won against Israel because it kept both its projectile arsenal intact and indeed was able to fend off Israeli advances in the South.

These two views appear irreconcilable and are being fought in Lebanese media and street protest scenes in the hope that they be translated into political gains or losses in the local Lebanese political arena.

Objectively speaking, both views appear to be right to some degree; but both are also wrong. Hezbollah may have actually both won and lost the war at the same time. But how could the same side win and lose in a war? The answer may be in considering that this was not one single war but two overlapping wars being fought simultaneously by the different parties. The two wars were: First a war of regional domination and the second a war of local  occupation.

The war of regional domination was the one in which the United States faced off Iran (Global players such as Russia played a minor role because of Ukraine; and China was barely engaged but for some minor diplomatic initiatives). The two regional powers essentially battled it using local proxies, primarily Iran through Hezbollah and the United States through Israel. This war for regional domination was the one where massive firepower, intelligence, and technological equipment and capabilities were on display from aircraft carriers, to 2000 pound bombs, to hypersonic missiles, drones, F35's, Artificial Intelligence ... The winner of this war was clearly the United States. Iran's firepower while impressive on occasion waned in comparison to what the United States mustered. 

This was the war that Hezbollah leaders did not want to fight and warned against. Notwithstanding their enmity towards the US, Hezbollah suspected a trap that would yield an unfavorable outcome, not unlike what had happened to the likes of Saddam. Alas, willingly or not, the Lebanese group was led to an undesired regional escalation that gifted the United States the reason to provide its proxy Israel with all the aforementioned firepower and carte Blanche to pull the trigger. This is the very reason why this war and specifically the US role was so very different than either Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon or that of 2006, when Israel for the most part was left to its own devices and ended it swiftly. In this war, the stakes and risks were deemed clearly way higher, which forced the United States against the hopes of either Iran or Hezbollah to put all its chips on the table. 

What were these bigger aims that would make the United States do this? The first aim was to reduce the massive mounting pressure on Israel by the Iranian axis, which threatened its actual survival like never before. The second was the reduction of the Iranian regional influence once and for all. The third was the control of the East Med Basin. The fourth was to remove any Russian presence in Syria and the Mediterranean (most likely in exchange for the Caspian). The fifth was the control of Syria. And the sixth was to fend off any talk of a future Chinese Silk Road that exits through the East Med. 

Such lofty geopolitical goals cannot be accomplished easily or cheaply. Enter expenditures in the $ Billions and massive US firepower, unseen in modern history in volumes surpassing those of World War 2 (If we include Gaza, the amounts of firepower exceeded 6 Hiroshima bombs!), coupled with automation, artificial intelligence, communications and military  equipment. This was very much in line with Eisenhower and later Shwarzkoff-Powel military doctrines of applying maximum power in any conflict as seen in the Gulf Wars and then in the wars after 911. This is  US doctrine not Israeli doctrine, which tends to be much more localized.

What occurred after the war clearly shows that the United States, which was not a declared party to the war, accomplished all of its goals. It reduced the influence of Iran and Russia substantially, it now controls both Lebanon and Syria, it took control of the East Med and it will be fending off any potential Chinese commercial designs on the region. Whereas Iran accomplished nothing in this regional war of domination  against the United States. In fact, it's two most valuable assets, Syria and Lebanon's Hezbollah have been severed  or depleted. Hezbollah as the proxy in this war clearly lost, and paid a very hefty price through assassination and destruction.

What about the second war: The War of Local Occupation, which occurred on the heels of the first one and which Israel probably  thought it might gain as a value-add,  invading Lebanon and occupying the South all the way up to the Litani. Why it would choose this specific delineation was circumspect because Hezbollah's rocketry range by far exceed the limits of the Litani. This has led some to explain that Israel wanted to take advantage of the group's weakened condition to acquire access to the valuable water resources. What ensued was essentially a stalemate close to the Lebanese Israeli border, with Israel invading but unable to occupy a single Lebanese village by force. It's rising casualties and waning US support for such an ineffective campaign led it to hastily request a ceasefire. Of course, according to military convention, in this specific war, Hezbollah was the victor because it did not allow Israel to accomplish any of its goals, whereas Hezbollah accomplished all of its own, foremost of which was to deny Israel any occupation as had been the case back in 1982. In fact, Lebanese people are already returning to their homes with only a few villages left to be evacuated by the Israelis. Also, Israel was unable to claim any water resources. 

Why is understanding the dynamics of these two wars so crucial in Lebanon? Because it will have both regional and local policy  implications. 

Regionally, Lebanon and all its internal parties have to come to grips that they cannot fight the United States, which has now moved to become the dominant regional player. Accepting this could present great opportunities for peace and prosperity. Rejecting it may have disastrous implications at a scale unimagined, military, political, and economic, as seen recently ... Essentially, there is no interest for Lebanon in such a conflict. There is also no interest for any of the Lebanese communities of allying with any other regional forcing them to oppose the United States now. It will prove to be as futile as it is destructive to their community.

What about Israel? There are those in Lebanon who think that Israel's interests are one and the same as those of the United States; and clearly Israel would like the world to believe so. This is not always the case, and the latest wars and Israeli moves in the Middle East have shown clear demarcation. Their interests converge and diverge. In particular and as it pertains to Lebanon, they may actually diverge, if Israel insists on occupying a chunk of Lebanon. If this happens, the Lebanese, uniting to oppose any Israeli designs over Lebanon is not only the right thing to do from a Lebanese perspective, but it is also necessary for the internal stability of the nation. This means that if Lebanon were to continue with its resistance within a purely national framework, one that does not ally with any regional players, but rather one whose aim is purely the national liberation of all 10,452 KM2 of Lebanese territory and not a single inch more, accompanied with an explicit national proclamation, such a goal should not oppose the hopes of most Lebanese people any more than it should raise fears for any neighboring countries or threaten the interests of the United States. 

If such a policy were to be multi-faceted to include diplomatic, economic, as well as military resistance, whenever necessary, and if Lebanon makes clear its intentions of not harboring any regional designs beyond its borders, this should send a strong signal to the international community and to the United States. If Lebanon follows this with moves to clean it's own house and begin democratic and constitutional reforms, this will only make Lebanon's interests more and more aligned with the United States. The second largest US embassy in the world being positioned in Beirut is no coincidence. It could be an opportunity for the Lebanese, ALL  Lebanese to seize.

Can a contiguous foreign and defense policy that prioritizes the relationship of Lebanon with the West, particularly the US, Europe, and the Gulf, whilst not threatening any other nation on globe be attained? Should such a policy parallel calling for a purely national agenda that supports the liberation of all 10,452 KM2 of the nation for the benefit of all Lebanese citizens therefore cementing the internal political scene? This is the pretty much the challenge on the table for the new class of emerging Lebanese leaders. 

Carpe Deum! 

When Indiscriminate Bombing Hits Home- Literally

Today is a very sad day for my maternal family whose neighborhood, full of old homes dating almost 100 years was targeted and destroyed turning them into a pile of rubble. While we are fortunate that none of our family members were there, the family home with its traditional tile, its thin alleyways, its garden, its traditional fountain, its palms, and its Guava tree are all gone.

My grandfather had built the place from scratch in the 1930's. It was in the peaceful and sleepy southern suburbs of Beirut, which was full of houses and orchards back then. He would open up his house for his Lebanese American bride, my grandma, and for their subsequent five children- my mom being the first to arrive. She has the oldest memories of all the neighborhood. All the houses around were of uncles and cousins. It was like a family village in the suburbs of Beirut. Most who had worked there were judges, teachers, and people who believed in their nascent Lebanese nation.

Years later, when my sister and I were born, mom would take us to Burj and we would play in the garden and swim in the fountain at its center. We would climb the fruit trees and then we would have a nice family barbecue. The war did not stop mom from taking us there on weekends to drink from its sweet water and absorb the unconditional love and humor of our Burj family.

When my grandparents passed away, my uncles each inherited a portion of the house and they soon added a couple of stories above the main house to accommodate their families. It remained a small building and it kept its traditional style. My cousins were all born and raised there and their childhood memories are all in that neighborhood.

All these years, the Minshiyyeh neighborhood survived war after war and battle after another; and it was never targeted because for the most part, it still housed the traditional families that were not involved in anything sinister ... We all thought it would be safe forever, until that is, some random bloke in a speeding metallic object in the sky decided to press a button and destroy it. 

What strategic purpose would such an indiscriminate bombing serve? It certainly hasn't made people more favorable to the bomber whom they see as marauding genocidal murderers that are trigger happy and have no appreciation for culture or history. It certainly won't eliminate the will of any resistance to their actions. They are unaffected by the destruction of a neighborhood that was irrelevant to them to begin with. And it will certainly not make the residents leave. Everyone we spoke to wants to rebuild. It is there home albeit there houses are no more.

It leaves one questioning what possible purpose does destruction for destruction's sake serve? Is it to satisfy the whims of a few blood thirsty criminal politicians? Is it to terrorize by showcasing the power of steel over tradition? Is it insatiable greed? Whatever it is, only the innocent seemingly pay the price these days, as the world watches on and does little to stop it.

Is a Lebanese national spirit emerging from the ashes of Israel's destruction?

The past week has been a painful one for Lebanon and the Lebanese people. More than 1,500 have been killed and thousands more wounded or maimed through indiscriminate acts of violence perpetrated by the Israeli state against Lebanon. This has been followed up by assassinations and massive bombing campaigns in the South, in the Bekaa, and in Beirut.

Notwithstanding the national tragedy, it has been heartening to see the Lebanese come together to deal with the dire consequences of the Israeli aggression. They have welcomed hundreds of thousands of internally displaced Lebanese. From as far afield as Tripoli, Mount Lebanon, the Shouf, and Beirut's Achrafieh, Lebanese people opened their homes, churches, and mosques. They donated blood, provided aid, hospitals, and medical services free of charge for those coming from the affected regions. Others visited bereaved families in the Beirut suburbs, bringing flowers and gifts. A towing company owner decided to support any car needing help along escape routes. Another who owns one of the most famous night clubs in the country, decided to host hundreds of displaced in the club. Even folks from usually politically opposing areas such as Tariq Jdeedeh paid respect to the fallen and the injured. The Lebanese people from all walks of life are helping their fellow Lebanese. 

Could an emerging Lebanese national spirit be emerging? It seems clear to everyone inside and outside the country.  Perhaps this citizen empathy and coexistence is the very one on which the Lebanese founders bet more than a century ago when they brought different and disparate religious groups together under one flag with a tree. While over the ensuing decades, Lebanon did have internal conflicts due to political constitutional intransigence and quirks, Lebanon has largely maintained this inter-communal coexistence without any genocidal intent and without any form of apartheid or segregation.

This said, Lebanon is far from perfect. The state has been weakened by years of corruption, and centrifugal forces for decades have pulled some of its communities away from its core mission. And yet throughout its history, it has remained accommodating to the Lebanese and even to neighborly refugees. And so, it is not in the least ironic that the West has opted to sanction Lebanon--which is a liberal democracy-- and punish its people who are peacefully hosting almost 2 million Syrian and Palestinian refugees; while not holding Israel to any account for the unrelenting killing rampage against 2 million Palestinians, the illegal and violent expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and the indiscriminate bombings of Gaza and Lebanon.

The juxtaposition of the two states cannot be of more contrast. On the one hand, Israel finds itself today sinking deeper and deeper into a moral abyss, needing to commit more and more atrocities in the name of defending itself. In the process, it has become to many in the world a pariah rogue state run by extremists, and committing a genocide against civilians in Gaza, with cases already raised in the International Court of Justice as well as the International Criminal Court against its actions and its leaders. Meanwhile in Lebanon, which has been standing against genocide, has indeed paid a very hefty price in lives and in material, but maintains its place quite intact among the civilized family of nations. 

And yet contrary to expectations, and notwithstanding different views towards the war, the Lebanese people have come together to empathize and support each other. Could it be that Lebanon deep inside has a hidden treasure of national spirit, based on morality, human dignity, and rights, overriding any other consideration, including deeply held political differences? Could it be that the Lebanese people are finally looking at each other and saying: We are all Lebanese; we love our country; we have all been hurt and suffered; we have to be be there for each other; we want to live together as one people; and we want this country to be the home for all of us? 

Once this storm blows over, the Lebanese will also be asking the world: Can this small and insignificant nation on the Mediterranean shoreline be given a chance to just be left alone to mend its wounds, and reestablish itself as a nation for all its citizens equally with no regard for race, religion, or gender? If so, then perhaps any sacrifices being paid now, as painful as they may be, may finally prove to be worth it, and the vision of the Lebanon of our forefathers may finally be realized ...

By Attacking Lebanon Israel once more Violates International Law

Against International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Convention, as well as several International trade and transportation laws, Israel launched an indiscriminate act of state-sponsored terrorism last week aimed at Lebanese people they could not identify, in places that they could not pinpoint, and in the vicinity of civilians that they could not gauge or exclude. It is estimated that more than three thousand explosions occurred in a span of less than three minutes across Lebanon, killing, maiming, or blinding thousands of Lebanese citizens. 

While not admitting the crime, the Israelis indirectly stated that they had been “targeting” individuals affiliated with Hezbollah. However, their argument has been found to be lacking of any legal context or justification for several reasons. 

Firstly, Israel failed to identify who they were targeting, given that Hezbollah as an organization and its activities span more than just the military, and rather delve into political, socio-economic, and medical areas with civilian servants numbering in the tens of thousands of thousands all over Lebanon, and many of whom are not at all involved in any military activity. As such, the attack can be considered indiscriminate and not “targeted” as Israel claims and therefore illegal under international humanitarian law. 

Secondly, the Israelis also failed to determine the estimated collateral damage, resulting from such an attack, which is another rule imposed by agreed-upon conventions of war. Nations engaged in war are expected to make such calculations in order to minimize civilian casualties. The fact that the exploding pagers killed or maimed thousands of passersby, women, and children, which Israel could have never estimated from the outset, proves that the order to commit this crime in itself was an illegal act of war and those who took it should be prosecuted for it. And even if Israel argues that the pagers were expected to be in use by Hezbollah operatives, how could such an attack have known that an operative carrying such a pager was not in respite from the battle field, grocery shopping, or visiting family, or driving a car, or any other scenario, which could have led to more deaths of innocents. Is Israel trying to set an example that any operative anywhere is a target; and if so, does that mean its own reservist soldiers, when they are back home from the front lines and with their families are now also legitimate targets at any time, in any place, regardless of collateral damage to their own families? If so, then Israel is setting quite a dangerous precedent for the world. 

Thirdly, as for the bombs themselves, the Israelis appear to have used a highly explosive chemical called PETN, which the New York Times estimated at 28 to 56 grams of explosives per device for a stunning sum total of more than 280 KG of high explosives. For reference, a mere 50 grams of chemicals were said to have been used to poison a former Russian military officer in London. At the time, the United Kingdom, supported by 28 countries unleashed a massive  investigation by Theresa May's government, blamed Russia for violating international law, and announced a series of punitive measures against Russia, including the expulsion of diplomats. The two poisoned victims did not reportedly die. In contrast, Lebanon's 3,000 explosions killed more than thirty people, seriously injuring more than 400, with many of them cruelly losing their eyes, and a total casualty list reaching almost 3,000 wounded per Lebanon's ministry of health. And yet, the ensuing UK statement at the UN Security paid lip service to Israel's breaking of international humanitarian law, weighing it against the old adage of Israel's right to defend itself, as if that gave anyone the right for committing what amounts to no less than state-sponsored terrorism.

And finally, even way before the explosions occurred, the fact that Israel concocted such a cowardly act, by using harmless civilian technology devices for nefarious reasons, illegally converting them to bombs using commercial fronts not connected to the manufacturer, set a very dangerous precedent to criminals and terrorists all over the world. Has Israel now provided a blueprint for how to install such explosive devices in mobile phones, ship them on planes or trains, for them to pass security undetected, and explode at will, indiscriminately killing hundreds, if not thousands? It is indeed a commercial precedent that has many nations shuddering at the potential consequences as stated by the Chinese representative at the UN Security Council.

For all the above reasons, Israel and its leaders should be held to account by the international community and brought to justice by the appropriate legal bodies. In the very least, Lebanon's case should be appended to the cases already in front of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to further substantiate and evidence Israel's departure from civilized and lawful conduct within the international community.

The Economics behind why Israel will not dare start a war with Lebanon

In his latest speech, Hezbollah Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah delved into an interesting topic that not many others in the region talk about;  and that is the cost of a potential war in Lebanon for Israel. Basically, he cited economic studies, which placed the value of Israel’s northern industrial, agricultural, technological, facilities, factories, technology, and research centers in the range of $150 Billion. He warned that if Israel were to venture into a war with Lebanon, this industrial north would be obliterated in an hour or less. From an economic perspective of course, Nasrallah may have been citing the actual value of the assets, not the overall economic value that they generate, which would be a multiple of this number. 

This raises the key question of what the cost to Israel would be if it declared a war on Lebanon. What better way of gauging this than to look at what cost the current war in Gaza has so far meant to Israel. According to a recent report by the American think tank, Rand, the total costs to Israel of the Gaza War are expected to total about $400 Billion Dollars. This can be split into 10% of direct war costs, such as military expenditures, lives lost, compensation for lifetime disabled, housing of the displaced, and the destruction of property. The other 90% includes indirect costs, such as businesses closed, unemployment, reduction in investment, currency or stock market valuation, wasted agriculture due to lack of workers, lost industrial production and export, immigration of talent and high value workers to safer shores … etc.

What is important to keep in mind here is that the Gaza War is between Hamas and Israel; and by all objective measures Hamas is a much weaker opponent to Israel than Hezbollah. In fact, most military analysts have Hezbollah’s capabilities quantitatively at least five times the firepower (rocketry) and manpower of Hamas. Qualitatively, however, Hezbollah’s capabilities are far more advanced than Hamas’ rudimentary methods and tools. Unlike Hamas, Hezbollah has been directly involved in highly advanced warfare in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. It has shown its military capabilities and  technology to be state-of-the-art, and much more precise. Its intelligence is more developed; and most importantly, its supply lines extend to the Arab and Iranian hinterland. 

The quantitative and qualitative military differential is therefore substantial; and the damage it can heap on Israel would be many folds more than Hamas'. Here we could also look at both the direct and indirect costs. 

In terms of the direct costs, Nasrallah’s estimate, if anything, could be considered conservative as he only took into account northern Israel. He did not allude to what his group is quite capable of destroying in the heart of Israel, which includes both Tel Aviv and Haifa. In fact, most Western and Israeli military analysts agree that Hezbollah’s missiles can now reach any part of Israel and with pin- point accuracy. One recent Israeli report estimated that the group could lob as much as 3,000 rockets per day for a period exceeding a month, which they stated would overwhelm any defense system that Israel can muster. The costs of all this direct damage would be substantially higher than even Nasrallah himself estimates.

As for the indirect costs, the Gaza war has reportedly caused Israeli business investment to plummet by 67.8%, consumption to contract by 26.9%, exports to drop by 18%, and the Israeli budget deficit to rise to 6.6%, with 46,000 businesses shut down, and an impending downgrading of debt rating. At the height of the war with Gaza, in the last quarter of 2023, the Israeli economy shrank by a stunning 20%, which is double a depression rate. 

The key point here is if Hamas—whose direct war reach was for the most part distant from the Israeli economic centers and limited to the areas surrounding the Gaza strip—was able to inflict on Israel such an economic toll, what would be the indirect costs of a full-blown war with Lebanon, which would entail a sizeable expansion of operations.

In geographic scope, the war would be at least twenty times as large as Gaza. After all, Gaza is a very small strip, whereas Hezbollah operates in large swathes of Lebanon and can hit anywhere in similarly-sized Israel.

Quantitatively, in military terms, it could be at least five times as intense, simply due to the larger size of Hezbollah’s forces and firepower. Qualitatively, destruction inside of Israel would be expected to be substantially more because of the advanced intelligence and guided weaponry. 

In grosso modo terms, if one were to multiply the expected direct cost of the Gaza war (Estimated at $40 Billion) by a factor of five to account for the above intensity and accuracy, the direct costs of a Lebanon war could reach as high as $200 Billion. In indirect cost terms, if we multiplied the Gaza war costs (Estimated at $360 Billion by Rand) by a factor of three to account for the nationwide disruption in wider Israel with such a massively expanded war, the indirect costs could very well top $1 Trillion. Adding both, the total cost of such a war could exceed $1.2 Trillion for Israel (This assumes a single war front with Lebanon, without the continuation of the Gaza war, which so far does not seem likely to end anytime soon). Under such a scenario, all the Western economic support is unlikely to save Israel’s government from bankruptcy, circumvent a massive economic calamity, and culminate in the massive exodus of people and businesses to safer shores. 

Interestingly, most objective strategists and military analysts do not believe there would be much to gain from such a war. Almost none believe that Hezbollah could be overcome; and none believe that Israel can invade Lebanon and occupy it as it did back in 1982. If anything, some military experts point to the possibility that Israel itself could potentially be invaded in the north by Hezbollah. Regardless, most objective analysis points to a strategic loss for Israel in such a war. 

Has Israel reached a point where it is willing to allow its extremists to throw away trillions of Dollars, cause massive destruction, and exodus, and all without any strategic gain? Rationally, one should think not, which may explain why Israel hasn’t launched a war on Lebanon yet, and indeed may never dare to.

Only the ICJ Can Save the Holy Land Now

The world witnessed an extraordinary event last week. South Africa presented a genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). According to many experts, the case presented by the African nation is very strong, having provided ample and hard-to-refute evidence. In fact, most of what was cited was based on UN figures showcasing the dimensions of the tragedy as well as statements made by the Israeli officials themselves, proving intent. Israel countered the allegations with the expected self-defense argument; and that it was actually the one on the receiving end of genocide. The sheer numbers of Palestinian civilian deaths, physical destruction, medical calamity, and famine conditions tended to dilute the Israeli counterargument.

Notwithstanding South Africa’s solid case for genocide, some have pointed to geopolitics potentially playing a role and ultimately influencing the decision of the ICJ. As the court is now tasked with mulling over the evidence to make a fairly quick but transcendental decision, let us look at the two possibilities and the implications under each scenario.

Starting off with the scenario of the ICJ ruling in favor of Israel, the immediate implication will likely be an emboldening of Israel’s far right-led military actions inside of Gaza. Quite simply, this means more bombs, more death, more destruction, more injury, more famine, and more tragedy on the Palestinian side. Even on the Israeli side, more soldiers will be maimed or killed; and the hostages will likely face their end. Israel itself will continue to struggle politically to get itself out of the quagmire, with opposing political forces unable to provide solutions or wrangle away decision-making power from Netanyahu’s far-right coalition. 

Globally, a chasm emerging between Judaism and Zionism will only widen. Many Jews all over the world will continue to protest against the hijacking of their very religion by the Zionists, who seem intent on occupying and killing in their name—ironically akin to what some see as Islamist jihadi organizations having done in the name of Islam, with the only difference being that Israel is a state that is a party to the Genocide Convention and can be held to account. Regardless, because Israel’s democracy appears to have been hijacked by its very own extremists, global Jews will increasingly distance themselves from all those seemingly not bound by any Conventions, let alone a sense of humanity. Israel will find itself progressively isolated from its very own global community.

Meanwhile, the region will continue to boil, especially in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, and possibly extending to Jordan and Egypt, who have warned against any genocide or transfer. Regional peace will become more distant, putting at risk the entire global supply of oil and other goods passing through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. The Middle East will drift further and further away from what will be seen as a criminally hypocritical West.

Under such a scenario, it is highly likely that the West, particularly the United States, and the world order it created post World War II, will be in shatters, as no country will take the Genocide Convention, let alone ICJ’s rulings, seriously anymore. The global South will feel that the ICJ itself is nothing more than an instrument hypocritically used by the powers that be whenever it serves their interests. Any talk of human rights, will be meaningless; and Western diplomacy will find it impossible to carry out an agenda based on civilized principles, like democracy and justice. All this would also give free reign to nations who have genocidal tendencies to act with impunity. They will argue that if Israel can get away with it, why can’t they?

Such a world will indeed be a dire one. Few winners would emerge from this scenario, except that is for extremists intent on going at each other’s throat;  or dictators disregarding any semblance of international law. Humanity and peace would be its ultimate victim.

Of course, there is the alternative scenario, in which the International Court of Justice decides in favor of South Africa. What would be the implications of such a ruling? They are equally immense. First and foremost, it would send a strong message to the world, that any nation that crosses the line set by humanity under international law, will be held to account—even nations with powerful friends or even if they were once ironically on the receiving end of genocide.

Secondly, and depending on the urgency set by the court, such a ruling could put an immediate stop to the hostilities, ordering Israel to stop its bombings and invasion of Gaza, hence ceasing and desisting the massacres, destruction, and inhumane treatment of Palestinians, and instead bringing back food, water, medicines, and power into the Gaza strip. While the far right in Israel may protest such measures, Israel as a state cannot and will not risk becoming a pariah state, and will be forced to comply.

Aside from saving countless Palestinian civilian lives as well as those of Israeli hostages, who could be released back to their families together with Palestinians held in Israeli jails, such an ICJ ruling will also highly likely diffuse the regional situation as hostilities in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq will cease. All of them have already explicitly stated that they would stand down once Israel stopped its attacks on Gaza.

Within Israel proper, this scenario will have serious reverberations. The fact that Israel—which ironically as a nation came about due to the genocide against Jews—is found guilty of genocide will mean that the entire narrative of the nation will have to change from that of being a victim of an injustice to that of being a perpetrator itself, hence on par within international law with all other nations, with no special treatment. Israeli society will indelibly have to shift blame from outsiders to those within its midst who caused this calamity to befall the nation. It is highly likely the finger will be pointed to Israel’s far-right for all its excesses—be they during this war, with the settlers, or for generally being against peace. One could even contemplate that some salient politicians may be banished altogether from the political scene, not unlike other extremists in the history of other nations. The same could occur within Palestine, especially if a peace process is kicked-off and culminated quickly. The Palestinians will want to embark on the reconstruction of their lives at the earliest. It would be unlikely that their extremist elements would survive a comprehensive peace agreement either politically or ideologically.

But why and how could peace emerge from a simple ICJ decision; and who could push for it? It could emerge simply because it is the only dynamic that would allow the region to stabilize. Without it, the region will continue to teeter; since Israel would have been weakened by the indictment, and no nation can come to its rescue or continue to support it without potentially facing the threat of legal action within the respective country—indeed there is already talk of potential lawsuits being brought against American Secretary Blinken and President Biden for aiding and abetting Israel in their excessive retaliation in Gaza.

The only way to reverse this dynamic, is for the West, led by the United States, to push for a comprehensive peace plan, even if it needs to be imposed. Some might say that this is too idealistic a scenario. In fact, it’s the least costly of alternatives for all those involved, including the United States, which has been desperately trying to keep a leash on Israel. Meaning, an ICJ order could serve to get the United States off the hook, providing an off-ramp with the desired outcome, but without the potential political price to pay. Some may say that this is too late; and that the United States is too implicated. Perhaps, but things could change if the United States were to lead a serious peace effort that culminates in regional peace. This would essentially transform a hefty liability into a regional victory. 

Encouragingly, the United States has been calling lately for comprehensive peace and “regional integration”, a term never before heard, but which showcases the opportunity to all the parties involved. Since, under this scenario, the world will have seen that the West and the United States in particular did not oppose the ICJ, it would dampen the hypocrisy charge. It could also serve to once more lend credence to the world order and specifically the multilateral institutions, namely the UN, which itself has been a victim of this war, with hundreds of its own staffers killed.

A final word on Iran, who some may argue might oppose such a peace deal. Bottom line, a comprehensive peace cannot be attained without Iran being party to it; and indeed, on no less than two occasions in the past 3 months, Iran has explicitly indicated that it is willing to sign up for comprehensive peace talks together with the rest of the Gulf States. It did so with a peace proposal submitted in October by Lebanon and one submitted by the Palestinians in December. As hard as some may find it to believe, Iran has no interest in being left out of a peace deal, especially a regional one that sees all the Arabs, including Palestine, potentially making peace with Israel.

The stakes have arguably never been higher for all those involved and indeed the world. Since democracy seems to have failed the two societies in circumventing mortal conflict, it is now left to the International Court of Justice to decide whether it’s time to put a stop to the violence and provide a sliver of hope for peace in the Holy Land. If the right choice is taken by the Court, who knows, perhaps the Almighty in his great wisdom might very well have decided that two peoples, on the receiving end of genocide, in the end needed to peacefully co-exist on his most Holy of Lands.

Winning the Peace in the Holy Land Might Require Imposition

It is finally beginning to dawn on many military strategists in the West that not only might Israel not win its war on Gaza, but it might outright lose it. Israel refuses to admit this ugly reality and continues with its brutal war killing Palestinian civilians while slaughtering Israeli soldiers. The world and especially the United States is now losing patience. Can peace somehow be snatched from the jaws of utter tragedy?

That Israel may lose this war may have come as a surprise to some, but in reality, Israel has been losing wars for well over two decades, as highlighted by Israel's own Ha'aretz recently. Indeed, the only questionable claim some in Israel may have of a semblance of a victory has been its expansion in the West Bank through illegal settlements. October 7th proved how unsustainable that concept was. In fact, not only did it prove to be untenable, but rather outright counter-productive, even in terms of land mass. Here's why:

Prior to October 7th, for almost two decades, Israel and its far-right governments mostly led by Netanyahu had been peddling to their society that it was ok to "gift" Israeli settlers Palestinian land. But all the land that settlers grabbed over the two decades now pales to the land that was evacuated by Israel to shield its citizens from rocketry and potential invasion in retaliation to its perceived historic injustice. On its Northern border with Lebanon, Israel has had to vacate land amounting to some 30% of the country size; and in the South, bordering the Gaza strip, it has had to do the same to a further 15% of its land mass. This effectively means that since October 7th, Israel has become almost 45% SMALLER than it had been before, displacing hundreds of thousands of Israelis as was recently highlighted by the New York Times.

To any casual observer, exchanging 45% of Israel's land for some illegal settlements to satisfy the unquenchable thirst of settlers would seem like a lousy barter. But of course, this trade-off was not apparent to many an extremist Israeli politician, including Netanyahu, who until October 7th was arrogantly trying to sell expansionist policies to the world, going as far as displaying the now infamous "River to the Sea" map in the UN General Assembly. As it happens, the whole world has now realized that such illegal Israeli expansionist policies have not only become unsustainable, but worse yet, have produced an existential threat to Israel proper, which finds itself struggling to cope even with one of the smallest regional powers, Hamas.

Two months into the raging war in Gaza, warnings to Israel have been increasing from all corners of the globe, even from close friends like journalist Thomas Friedman and US President Joe Biden, one of Israel's most stalwart supporters. They are all essentially warning of the same thing: Israel's extremist policies have alienated the world; and Israel needs to stop destroying itself as it attempts in vain to destroy the notion of Palestine. Even former Israeli PM Ehud Barak, who once wisely exited Israel from Lebanon, issued a similar warning, going as far as to cite pre-biblical text that warned about the eighty-year curse, which throughout history has plagued any established Jewish state (Israel happens to be approaching this milestone).

The response by those in power in Israel has of course been adamant: Yes for war at any cost. No to Hamas existence. No to Palestinian Authority taking over. No to a Palestinian state. But given that Israel is effectively not winning the war in Gaza on the battlefield, is continuing the war sustainable militarily, economically, socially, and internationally? In the meantime, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have come out and said that they were willing to accept peace with a two-state solution, based on the UN's internationally recognized 1967 borders. If one is willing to take them up on their offer, it would appear that what stands in the way of peace in the holy land at the moment may not be Hamas, but extremist Israelis in power.

And so the world finds itself facing two scenarios. The first is a continuation of this vicious war, which is killing more and more Palestinian civilians, while driving Israelis deeper and deeper into a military abyss. The other scenario as unlikely as it may seem is peace, which the whole world, including most Palestinians and some Israelis, are actually for. How to get out of this dilemma?

As the Palestinians appear ready, the Israelis might need to be compelled by the international community to come to the table, accepting the ugly reality of battleground dynamics and real politik. But even if they come to the table, it must not be assumed that a just peace might be attained. Indeed, a more reasonable assumption might be that the Israelis will try their best to compensate their losses on the battlefield with wins on the negotiation table. They could make such demands as Hamas leaving Gaza, not paying retribution for all the destruction, not dismantling illegal settlements, not giving back occupied land, not releasing Palestinian prisoners, not agreeing to a contiguous, autonomous, and fully independent Palestinian State along the recognized 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and not allowing the Palestinians the right to return. This must not be allowed as it will derail the peace. Similarly and in exchange, all the Palestinian factions must be forced to accept Israel and must assume the responsibility of their own Palestinian state, holding it accountable for the welfare of all its citizens and the Palestinian Diaspora, while disallowing any security infringements with Israel. 

Left to their own devices and given all the bloodshed, the warring parties may not be inclined to sign such a peace. However, if the world wants to have a lasting peace in the Holy Land, all these conditions MUST be accepted by both parties,  circumventing all the post-Oslo shenanigans. Notwithstanding all the tragic violence, death, and destruction, the world in its entirety should now place as its utmost priority Winning the Peace in the Holy land. If they will not do it on their own, the two states must be imposed upon to sign a lasting peace. If that requires a forced peace through UN resolutions, then so be it. If it means having UN forces separating borders, so be it. And if it means the need to build walls between the two states on the 1967 borders, so be it. 

While there may never have been such a destructive moment in the history of the two peoples, perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, there might never be a better moment for final and lasting peace to emerge from the rubble, not unlike democracy emerged from a destroyed Europe after World War II. But first a space for peace has to be cleared up by the international community. Second and more importantly, this winning the peace has to be seen as the primary objective by the whole world, regardless of the warring parties. Having seen the scope of the calamity, the suffering of people, and the utter destruction, there should now be one and only one objective and that is Winning the Peace that finally brings resolution to a conflict that has gone on for too long and brought the region to the brink of utter catastrophe. If the only way to bring this about is through international imposition, then let it be.