One could be excused for assuming all states operate as true equals in the international system and under international law. A brief observation of Lebanon quickly dispels such a conception, however, as the recent exchange of fire between it and its southern neighbor Israel depicted last week. The series of incidents mark a continuation of the small Mediterranean country’s unfortunate reality—namely one of fractured subservience or submission to various regional and international actors that are worsening its numerous ongoing crises.

Lebanon-Israeli Tensions

The escalation between Beirut and Tel Aviv began on April 6, when missiles flew over Lebanon’s southern border and into northern Israel. While unclear at first, many suspect the Palestinian organization and armed group known as Hamas for launching the rockets from positions it controls in Lebanon. This was likely in response to the brutal attacks of Muslim worshippers inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem during the holy month of Ramadan on April 5 which constituted major human rights violations. The worshippers wished to stay in the mosque overnight to practice Itikaf—essentially overnight stays in mosques to pray, reflect, and recite the Quran.

The Israeli military reported that thirty-four rockets had been fired into its territory from southern Lebanon, noting that it intercepted at least twenty-five while four landed inside Israel. Three people were harmed in the attack, which also caused material damage and sent Israeli citizens fleeing for bomb shelters across northern Israel.

Tel Aviv responded on April 7 with airstrikes supposedly targeting the origin sites of the attacks in Lebanon, also opting to strike Hamas positions in the Gaza Strip—the origin of additional rocket attacks on Thursday. Fortunately, no deaths were reported as a result of the strikes. Importantly, the Israeli military made a point to explicitly note that it was only targeting sites linked to Palestinian militants—likely a signal to Lebanese Hezbollah that it did not desire further escalation along its northern border with the much more formidable armed group.

Naturally, the series of events produced a flurry of diplomatic efforts to prevent a rapid escalation akin to the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, which ravaged large parts of southern Lebanon. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the peacekeeping force operating as a buffer between Lebanese and Palestinian militants in Lebanon and Israel, was in close contact with both sides to prevent further violence.

But efforts by both parties to signal disinterest in any escalation ultimately won the day. Indeed, official Israeli statements did not blame Hezbollah for the attacks. This proved to be a crucial signal to Lebanon and Hezbollah, especially as many suspected the group green-lighted the strikes since Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah met in Beirut with senior Hamas officials and Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh just hours before the strikes. Lebanese officials reciprocated, with many—including Hezbollah-ally Gebran Bassil of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) political party—condemning “non-Lebanese” rockets fired from their country.

Not in My Backyard

While cooler heads prevailed amidst a context dominated by hawks, which should be welcomed, there is an inherent irony to statements from the likes of Bassil. Not only is it unlikely that Hezbollah was aloof to any Hamas efforts to strike Israel, but the concept of any rejection of “non-Lebanese rockets” is also hysterical and hypocritical.

Ultimately, the rockets fired by Hamas from Lebanon are sourced from the same country—Iran. Bassil and his Hezbollah-aligned FPM want to present a scenario in which Hamas rockets are “non-Lebanese” while pretending that Hezbollah rockets are somehow intrinsically different. In the real world, his party and the pro-Hezbollah bloc regularly point Iranian weaponry—namely “non-Lebanese” rockets—at their southern neighbor. Thus, Bassil presenting a “not-in-my-backyard” stance is as bad faith as it gets in Lebanese politics.

The Myth of Lebanese Sovereignty Today

Yet while Bassil’s newfound altruism regarding armed groups in Lebanon should be expected given his history of disingenuous and corrupt actions, such statements speak to the Lebanese reality today. Whether it be Iranian, Israeli, or other regional and international interests, it is clear that Lebanon has shed any remaining vestiges of sovereignty, opting instead to pawn this off to the highest bidder. Bassil’s statements are the epitome of this dynamic, as the “non-Lebanese” rockets commentary proves.

Indeed, regular Israeli military flights over Lebanese skies—22,000 as of mid-2022—mark one of the staunchest examples of the former’s violation of the latter’s sovereignty. This says nothing of unilateral military operations against Lebanon in recent decades that have resulted in tens of thousands of direct and indirect deaths.

To be sure, actors in Lebanon deserve some blame for these previous military operations. Iran regularly flouts Lebanese sovereignty through its Hezbollah and Hamas partners, the former of which essentially operates a state within a state as it erodes Lebanon’s institutions. In parallel, Hezbollah regularly smuggles essential energy supplies and other goods out of the impoverished country to Syria to prop up the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad—a country that occupied Lebanon for much of its existence in one form or another. Such actions are in support of Iran’s “resistance” efforts—not Lebanese interests. Still, they do not constitute many of the unilateral Israeli actions.

Regional states also have a long history of similar violations. Saudi Arabia is central to this reality as it has, until recently, long played a patron role in Lebanon, co-opting Sunni and Christian parties to counter Iranian influence in the country. This rarely meant support for basic human rights or anti-corruption efforts as regional states preferred Lebanon’s role as the Switzerland of the Middle East—namely for its incredibly opaque and corrupt banking system. A simple observation of the Lebanese political system shows that most politicians draw allegiances and legitimacy from ethnicity-based patronage systems that vertically span into both Lebanese communities and outside the country to various Middle Eastern states. Pro-Syria parties, such as Marada leader and presidential hopeful Suleiman Frangieh, offer perfect examples of this dynamic.

Ultimately, Lebanon’s sovereignty problem is a long-running net negative for the country, heavily contributing to the paralysis witnessed in its political and governing systems. While this does not explain the full story of despotic and nepotistic clientelism that has fueled corruption in the country for most of its existence, it is certainly a major impediment to reforms that could improve the reality of its people. 

If the region and world continue to view Lebanon as a playground for their geopolitical ambitions, the country will experience worsening economic and political degradation. As the recent Israeli strikes and political statements in Lebanon suggest, the situation is set to worsen so long as those in positions of power continue to reject the writing on the wall.

Alexander Langlois is a foreign policy analyst focused on the Middle East and North Africa. He holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University’s School of International Service. Follow him at @langloisajl.

Image: Andreas Zeitler / Shutterstock.com