Can diplomacy work? As Israel seeks peace on northern front, former IDF officers disagree on chances for a deal

The Lebanese terror group Hezbollah has been attacking Israel for almost 10 months now, without a cause other than ostensible “solidarity” with its fellow Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip.

With tensions seemingly at a boiling point even before Wednesday evening's elimination of the group’s second in command in its Beirut stronghold, Israeli government spokesman David Mercer, nonetheless, stressed that Israel continues to prefer a diplomatic solution.

“Most of us feel that this is an opportunity for Hezbollah to engage in what can range between Jew killing and harassment of this country,” Mercer told international journalists on Wednesday.

He added that the Hezbollah terrorist organization is, in principle, part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and that with the Iranian regime leading the fighting against Israel on seven active fronts, the chances for diplomatically resolving the conflict with Hezbollah appear slim.

“They see us as the small Satan, but only en route to Europe and America where they believe the big Satan is. They find our presence here offensive. It's not about Palestinians,” Mercer cautioned.

Still, he reiterated that “this is a country that hates war,” noting that like many Israelis, his son was about to begin his military service with Israel Defense Forces.

“Here, we will do everything possible to avoid war. Sometimes we've waited far too long if anything, that's one of our faults,” he said.

Speaking just hours before Israel responded to the massacre of 12 Druze children in Majdal Shams by killing Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr, former Druze IDF officer Hamada Ghanem said he and the Druze community would support the actions of the Israeli government, even if it should lead to a war.

However, the former brigade commander added that he would prefer an Israeli response not lead to a possible devastating all-out war, noting that there were potential partners for peace in Lebanon.

Ghanem stressed that while many Shia Muslims in Lebanon support Hezbollah and its aggressive policies, other communities in the country desire peace.

“I’m speaking about the Druze, the Christians, and the Sunni Muslims, they don’t want war… because we know very well that Hezbollah is working according to the policy of Iran.”

Nevertheless, Ghanem said that if Hezbollah “withdraws a certain distance from the border, and won’t endanger our communities,” and international forces, possibly from the United Nations, were to effectively prevent the group from launching attacks, he would be open to an agreement.

“I strongly believe that we need to reach a solution of peace with the Lebanese state, because there are many people there who want peace,” Ghanem concluded.

Addressing international journalists after Ghanem's comments, Lt.-Col. (res.) Gideon Harari, a former IDF intelligence officer, agreed that Israel isn’t interested in fighting Lebanon. However, his outlook was somewhat more pessimistic.

While cautioning that Israel’s response to the Majdal Shams attack on Saturday should not drag Israel into a larger war, he also emphasized that, down the line, a war with Hezbollah was inevitable.

Harari even referred to a diplomatic solution as a “stupidity,” pointing out that those who are negotiating for it aren’t even running the country. “[Hezbollah], they’re running Lebanon,” he noted.

He also dismissed the negotiations led by U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein, who has repeatedly met Lebanese Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati. “It’s a waste of time because the guy who takes the decisions in Lebanon is Hassan Nasrallah.”

In addition, Harari pointed out that Hezbollah’s sophisticated weapons arsenal means it could attack Israel even if it withdrew behind the Litani River, according to UN Resolution 1701.

The only way to solve Israel’s problem in the north is for Hezbollah to disappear completely, Harari stressed.

The former intel officer, who only lives a little over a mile (2 km) from the Lebanese border, said that signing an agreement with the terror group would be foolish.

Hezbollah “is not signing anything, they’re not obliged to anything, they’re not part of the U.N. and are not appearing at the international court in Hague, they don’t care about it – so who are we dealing with?”

“I think that the diplomatic option is a stupidity, because if the war isn’t coming today, it will come in two years – so better to do it today,” said Harari.

Just a few hours after these statements were issued, Israel responded decisively and strategically by targeting and killing Shukr in Beirut.

Now, the metaphorical ball is, once again, in Hezbollah’s court but the question for Israel remains the same.

Will it continue to seek a diplomatic solution, which might give the residents of northern Israel two more years of tense quiet until the next war breaks out?

Or will Israel’s leadership decide some time soon that the time has come to deal with the threat from the north, once and for all?