Why Israel Missed the Chances to Eradicate Hamas and Hezbollah

Long-standing conflicts between Israel and its neighboring territories of Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria have left both sides in a perpetual state of war. Among these conflicts, two prominent non-state actors, Hamas and Hezbollah, have posed significant threats to Israel's security. Yet, despite multiple opportunities, Israel has often refrained from fully eradicating these militant groups. This article explores the reasons behind Israel's hesitation and the challenges it faces in pursuing a comprehensive solution.

The Myth of a Golden Opportunity in the 1980s

Many argue that Israel missed a historic opportunity to eradicate Hamas and Hezbollah during the 1980s. This argument is based on the assumption that in the early stages, these organizations were smaller and more dependent on Israeli support. While it is true that Hamas and Hezbollah were fledgling organizations in this period, the reality is more nuanced. During this time, both groups were neighbor-ing the possibility of growth and support through other channels, including the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) and, in the case of Hezbollah, Syria.

The 1980s marked a crucial period for the formation and development of these organizations. This was a time when Hamas was establishing itself in the Palestinian territories, and Hezbollah was gaining strength in Lebanon. Both groups were intentionally building their capabilities, relying on a mix of local support, external funding, and strategic partners.

Recent Conflicts and UN Involvement

More recently, Israel has faced several conflicts, particularly in Lebanon and Gaza. In both cases, the conflicts were not suspended due to war fatigue but rather due to UN resolutions. These resolutions, often guided by the international community, sought to protect civilian lives and maintain peace, thereby limiting Israel's ability to conduct a thorough and comprehensive invasion.

With every attempt, Israeli forces have faced significant constraints. In the case of Hezbollah, the group's strongholds in Syria and Lebanon make it logistically difficult for Israel to launch a full-scale invasion. The presence of Hezbollah in Syria complicates the situation further, as Israel must consider the consequences of military action on the broader regional landscape.

The Underlying Reasons: Fear and Survival

Underlying Israel's cautious approach is a combination of fear and the survival instinct. The fear of creating more animosity, the potential for European boycotts, and the interference of international bodies like the UN are all factors that influence Israel's decision-making. The basic Israeli instinct is survival, not vengeance. As a result, Israel often chooses to act in a manner that ensures its safety while avoiding deepening regional conflicts or drawing international condemnation.

The fear of regional escalation is particularly significant. While Israel has the military might to neutralize these organizations, it must carefully weigh the potential consequences of such actions. The ongoing conflict has created a cycle of violence that is difficult to break, and each action by one party risks being met with a potent response from the other.

Conclusion

Israel's failure to eradicate Hamas and Hezbollah is multifaceted. The 1980s provided limited opportunities, and recent conflicts have been curtailed by UN resolutions and fear of international backlash. The underlying reasons for Israel's cautious approach lie in the fear of deepening regional animosity and the preservation of its own safety. While these actions may seem defensive, they reflect a complex geopolitical reality that makes complete eradication unlikely.