Even as Washington and Tehran moved towards a truce on 8 April, Israel launched its heaviest strikes yet on Lebanon. The United Nations condemned the casualty reports as “appalling”, and Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, described the destruction and deaths as “horrific”.
The day the United States-Iran ceasefire was announced, many hoped the region might be stepping back from a wider war.
It is regrettable that there appears to be continuing disagreement over whether Lebanon was covered by that ceasefire. Israel and the United States have said that Lebanon was not part of the arrangement, while Iran and a number of other governments have taken the contrary view. What is clear is that Israel continued bombing Lebanon after the ceasefire was announced. According to Lebanon’s Civil Defence, at least 254 people were killed, and 1,165 others were wounded in the attacks on 8 April alone. These attacks have placed further strain on an already fragile truce. Recent analysis has described Israel as digging in for a “forever war” through buffer zones in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon.
It is in that context that Netanyahu’s conduct must be assessed. Chatham House has said plainly that he has taken a bet that war will improve his chances of political survival in Israel. Recent reporting has also noted that, with the halt in attacks on Iran, Netanyahu’s corruption trial will resume, and that his coalition is predicted to lose the October elections. The reasonable conclusion is that the prolongation and widening of conflict have served Netanyahu politically, even as they have damaged Israel strategically and morally.