It is clear that the clashes that took place at the Lebanese-Israeli border happened on the spur-of-the-moment. The Lebanese army had not taken a decision in advance to provoke a military confrontation with Israel. Otherwise, the army would have instructed its border posts to take precautionary measures that would have perhaps prevented the death of the martyrs in its ranks. However, the daily Israeli violations of the borders and sovereignty may have prompted the soldiers in a specific border post to open fire in response to provocation, and to tell the Israelis that they cannot continue their violations without paying the price. On the Israeli side, meanwhile, the violation was clearly intentional, in particular given the fact that the UNIFIL informed the Israelis of the need to cease operating in an area where Lebanon contests the Blue Line dividing it. Nevertheless, the Israelis proceeded with cutting trees and installing surveillance cameras, and the rest is history. The Israeli breach is also deliberate because it took place after a Lebanese decision to enhance the Lebanese army contingent south of the Litani was taken and began to be implemented, in the wake of the clashes with the UNIFIL in some villages there. Hence, targeting the army was tantamount to a message that demarcates ‘borders' that the Israelis assume the army must not breach. This is while bearing in mind that Israel has not desisted from persuading the countries of the world, especially the United States and Europe, not to provide any assistance to the Lebanese army on the pretext that its weapons might fall into the hands of Hezbollah fighters. Limited as they may be, the clashes reflect the growing tension in the entire region, with the increasing talk about a possible war and other military scenarios, and the threats being exchanged among the various sides, both in term of the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Iranian situation. However, this is the first time in decades that the Lebanese government, through its army, comes to the forefront of this conflict, noting that the army had already engaged the Israelis in recent years, but always in self-defense after being targeted. Never since the Arab-Israeli war in 1948, in which the Lebanese army took part, did Lebanon take the initiative to confront an Israeli border violation with firearms, despite the clarification by the government yesterday that there is no change in the defense strategy adopted by the army. One of the ‘advantages' of this initiative was to push Hezbollah to announce that it places its men and materiel in the disposal of the army, while informing the political leadership of this. However, the party soon altered its position when its Secretary-General announced on the same day that he will ‘act' in the next time, and will defend the army. In other words, Hezbollah would seize the initiative from the army, or from the state, effectively placing a barrier between the two parties, and regaining the ‘decision of war and peace'. Thus, the ideal situation where the Lebanese state became the sole decision maker in the South only lasted a few hours, ones that will probably never be repeated. This is because Hezbollah has its own calculations and timing, and the party has proven in practice that it will not be drawn into a battle where the decision is not up to it, or to a battle that it did not plan in the first place. As for the hopes of a large number of Lebanese to one day see their government unified and in control of its own reins, without giving concessions to the enemy or accepting dictates from abroad, this hope appears – in light of what we currently know – closer to being a delusion, but a delusion that is nonetheless worth for them to continue believing.
