Maya
Israel’s Dahieh Doctrine: Asymmetrical Warfare and Civilian Devastation in Lebanon
Dahieh, the southern suburb of Beirut, was home to one of Lebanon's most densely populated communities. Over half a million people lived in Dahieh, comprising towns such as Ghobeiry, Haret Hreik, Ouzai, and Hay El-Saloum. It was also home to 20,000 Palestinians in the Burj Al-Barajneh United Nations refugee camp. Dahieh served as a residential, commercial, and educational hub with public, private, and religious schools alongside hospitals, stores, and offices. Now, after relentless bombings for months, Dahieh more closely resembles a ghost town. The massive loss of life and displacement of its residents has left streets eerily empty and homes abandoned. Some have likened the new Dahieh to Mars, with craters and scorched earth left by relentless bombings, creating a barren, unrecognizable landscape that speaks to the scale of destruction.
The State of Israel and its army, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), accomplished this devastation through the Dahieh Doctrine, a military strategy formulated by former IDF Chief of General Staff, Gadi Eizenkot. Named for the decimated city, this doctrine treats areas interpreted as "supporting" enemy combatants as legitimate military targets, ignoring civilian status, the Geneva Conventions, or international law. This tactic has had catastrophic consequences for Lebanon’s civilians and infrastructure.
Not only Dahieh but the South of Lebanon also bore the brunt of Israeli attacks. The South’s 37 residential villages have been reduced to rubble, fulfilling Israeli threats to “send Lebanon back to the Stone Age.” Reports from Human Rights Watch and the World Bank highlight the profound humanitarian toll, underscoring the asymmetrical nature of this conflict.
Between October 2023 and November 2024, during the broader context of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Israeli bombings killed over 4,000 and injured 16,700 people in Lebanon. Before an official ceasefire was reached between Israel and Hezbollah, an armed political party within Lebanon, Israel destroyed more than 100,000 housing units in Lebanon, including 40,000 units in southern border towns on November 27, 2024. Over 1.3 million people—one in five of Lebanon’s population—were displaced, with 875,000 internally displaced and 100,000 fleeing to Syria. Among other devastating statistics, 166,000 people lost their jobs and livelihoods.
While northern Israel experienced some damage, it was far less severe than in Lebanon. By September 20, 2024, the BBC reported 10,200 cross-border attacks between Israel and Hezbollah, 8,300 of which were launched by Israel. Approximately 60,000 Israelis were displaced, and 82 soldiers and 47 civilians were killed. Reports by independent journalists suggest that Hezbollah primarily targeted critical IDF military sites, contrasting with Israel’s deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure.
Israel intentionally targeted civilian infrastructure in Dahieh to “deter their Hezbollah adversaries.” Yes, the neighborhood has been historically significant as a supportive base for the political party. Yes, it houses some of Hezbollah's political offices, administrative facilities, and key personnel. Regardless, Dahieh is primarily a residential area with thousands of families. Yet Western media often frame Dahieh solely as a “stronghold” of Hezbollah, justifying Israeli actions that disregard Lebanese civilians' safety and human rights.
The Israeli army also operates within civilian areas. For example, its headquarters, HaKirya, is in central Tel Aviv, next to a shopping mall and food market. This dual use of civilian infrastructure has never drawn similar criticism from the media. By the same logic applied to Dahieh, one could argue that all of Israel—where all citizens of age must serve in the army—could be considered an IDF “stronghold.” This double standard highlights selective biases and raises questions about international humanitarian law.
Israel’s use of the Dahieh Doctrine violates the Geneva Conventions, including protections for civilians during armed conflict (Articles 48, 51, and 57) and prohibitions against collective punishment (Article 33). Despite widespread condemnation, enforcement remains lacking as powerful countries, mainly the U.S., provide financial and military support while shielding Israel diplomatically. European nations also continue economic cooperation, and Israel retains its position in international forums like the UN.
After 14 months of conflict, a fragile ceasefire agreement was reached in November. The agreement outlined specific conditions, including a 60-day cessation of attacks, during which Israeli forces will withdraw from southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah fighters will relocate north of the Litani River. The Lebanese Armed Forces, alongside UN peacekeepers, are tasked with securing the vacated areas to prevent any power vacuums.
A monitoring mechanism, chaired by the United States with participation from France, Israel, Lebanon, and UN representatives, has been established to oversee compliance and address violations. Both Israel and Lebanon retain the right to self-defense under international law, allowing for responsive actions if the ceasefire terms are breached. The agreement underscores the commitment of both parties to the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon and the establishment of a weapons-free zone in the south.
A week later, by December 4, Israel had violated the ceasefire more than 29 times and killed 11 civilians. By December 12, Israel had killed at least another eight civilians. To this day, Israel has attacked Lebanese villages 191 times with White Phosphorus, an incendiary chemical weapon that burns to the bone and makes areas uninhabitable, undermining the agreement’s purpose and prolonging Lebanese suffering.
Israel, despite its publicly documented violations of international law and human rights abuses over decades, tends to evade substantial accountability from the international media as well as in diplomatic circles. This discrepancy highlights the unequal application of justice and the influence of geopolitical alliances in shaping narratives and responses.
The United States, as Israel’s primary regional ally, bears significant responsibility. By providing financial, military, and weaponry support, the U.S. enables Israel’s actions. This complicity aligns the U.S. as a rogue state, disregarding all international law and justice. The U.S. must immediately establish an arms embargo on Israel, cease all financial and military aid, and support diplomatic measures instead of vetoing solutions at the UN. The U.S. must enforce the ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, holding them accountable for their war crimes. Israel’s diplomatic immunity must end immediately. Only through tangible accountability measures can we hope to prevent such atrocities.
Comentarios