Ever since Greater Lebanon was established, its South has had its own particularity and ambiguous relationship with the center. This particularity would change as the situation in the country did, but the South always remained the land of ambiguity, not just because it falls on the northern border of Palestine, with which it had shared many economic and social ties before the establishment of the State of Israel and what resulted from it, but also because of its demographic composition and the sectarian dominance of the Shiites, who moved from the tutelage of political feudalism to Leftist affiliation and then Palestinian resistance, before waging against the latter military battles and pledging their loyalty to the Amal movement until Hezbollah arose to share with it this loyalty. And at each of those stages, the events in South Lebanon, in terms of politics or security, have involved messages and symbols directed at the country, and expressing the profound changes that have befallen Lebanese society – even if what appears the most are the events connected to the conflict with Israel, which have made the South a center of tension and bloody fighting, especially after the 1967 war. In some way, the South has witnessed an uninterrupted series of wars ever since the first skirmish between the Palestinian resistance and the Israeli army in 1968, and the Lebanese-Palestinian battles that followed. Then came the civil war in 1975, with which the South was split away from the center as the state completely withdrew from it by virtue of the de facto situation. This Lebanese region has only witnessed relative stability and calm under UNIFIL forces, which were reconstituted and increased in number after the July War of 2006 and the return of state institutions, especially security and military institutions, to the South. Despite the fact that there is much talk of a possible return to the war between Hezbollah and Israel, the South has maintained its stability, as a result of the presence of UNIFIL, the mission of which includes implementing UN Resolution 1701, which put an end to warfare operations in 2006. And despite the difficulties UNIFIL has faced in its mission, especially in terms of the armed presence of Hezbollah south of the Litani River and the constant Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty, it has remained a safety valve in the face of any effective resumption of the fighting in the South. And in spite of the discrepancies in assessing the performance of UNIFIL, its presence has brought stability and security, and has represented protection against any dangerous slide in the repeated security incidents at the border. In other words, these UN forces have, ever since they were reconstituted after July 2006, represented a need for Lebanon and for Hezbollah (and subsequently Syria and Iran), as well as for Israel and the international community, in order to avoid a return to war through the Lebanese border – thereby separating, at least temporarily South Lebanon from the conflict on the field with Israel. Today, with the repeated targeting of UNIFIL forces, especially the French contingent, and with rockets being fired every now and then into Israel from the South, the question is once again being raised about the particular Southern message that lies behind such targeting. There are those who have spoken of a Syrian message to the Europeans, who form the greater part of forces within UNIFIL, in view of their stances opposed to the Syrian regime in its handling of domestic developments. But UNIFIL units were the subject of attacks before the eruption of the wave of protests in Syria. If the Lebanese President's predictions prove true, about the fact that such attacks are aimed at pressuring for the withdrawal of UNIFIL, then this would mean that the issue goes beyond a mere message tied to the presence of UNIFIL in the South to reengaging this Lebanese region in the conflict, and returning to an immediate frontline with Israel, with all that this could involve in terms of the possibility of confrontations occurring at any moment. And on the background of the political-security predicament in Syria, the complexities of the relationship between Iran and the West, and the exchange of threats with Israel, with this reflecting in Hezbollah's escalating tone, complete regional deterioration and tension, reaching up to war or to its threshold, may be the gateway to changing the rules of the current game. Did not one of those close to the decision-makers in Damascus say that instability in Syria would also reflect on Israel? That is the meaning of taking hostage the UNIFIL forces in South Lebanon.
