Ehud Barak shares the honour with another comrade-in-arms of being the most decorated soldier of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) ever. His role in ‘Operation Isotope’ (1972), daring raid in Lebanon (1973) or the Entebbe raid (1976) amongst countless others have elevated him in the Israeli imagination as a first-rate patriot and defender of his nation. In 1991 he was made the Israeli Military’s Chief of General Staff.

Barak, the war hero and valiant General was to later become the Prime Minister of Israel (1999-2001), representing the Labor Party ~ which naturally made him adopt secular, progressive and pacifist ‘two-state solution’ positions. But there is something profound in what Barak had said in 2006 when the Israeli IDF had attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon, “When we entered Lebanon, there was no Hezbollah. We were accepted by perfumed rice and flowers by the Shi’a in the south,” and went on to suggest, “It was our presence there that created Hezbollah”.

What Barak posited implicitly was on the inevitability of consequences, whenever disproportionate means and scale were used to supposedly destroy terror ~ the soldier in him understood that terror certainly requires a militaristic reaction, but it is equally essential to win over the disaffected and disgruntled people with their genuine socio-economic, administrative and even political grievances. The bullet can never be the sole solution, anywhere in the world. Eighteen years after the 34 day 2006 Lebanon War, the Israeli IDF has attacked Hezbollah again in Lebanon, and reportedly killed its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

Contrary to the spirit of the point made by Barak in 2006, today the killing of Hassan Nasrallah was announced by the IDF spokesperson, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari with the statement that the action will make “the world a safer place”. History is instructive, otherwise. Beyond the brouhaha of Israel’s famed ways of handling terror (including the recent case of bursting pagers and cell phones that mesmerised many), the Israel-Palestine dissonance remains arguably the longest unresolved insurgency that goes back to the 1948 Palestine War (if not the late 19th century with the arrival of Jewish settlers in Ottoman Palestine). Seventy eight years since the formation of the Israeli State and the relentless tensions and bloody wars, 2024 has been the deadliest year in terms of deaths on both sides (over 1,700 Israelis and over 41,500 Palestinians) and perhaps the polarisation of the people has never been worse.

To think that the world will be a safer place after all this bloodlust goes agai nst the grain of history, logic and rationality. While many see the neutralization of Hassan Nasrallah from a binary lens of ‘Islamic Terror’, they miss the big dimension of sectarian dissonance that besets tensions in the Middle East or in the Ummah globally. Part of the smaller Shia faction (which too has multiple divisions within it), Hezbollah was seen as a proxy of the Shiite epicenter, Iran. Hezbollah shares cosectarian affiliation with the Yemeni Houthis and with Syria’s ruling Bashar Al Assad-led Alawite (Shia offshoot sect) government all of whom look up to Iran for support, guidance and psychological inspiration.

It is often forgotten that the most globally well recognised Islamic terror organisations were predominantly Sunni, such as the Al Qaida, ISIL, Boko Haram or closer home, Taliban. Each one of them had targeted Iran and their patronized proxies like Hezbollah, the Syrian Government, Houthis or Hazaras (in Afghanistan). In the complicated cauldron of Middle Eastern war theatres, these Shiite factions were at the forefront of taking on forces like Al Qaida or ISIL, but given Iran’s complicated history with the West, were demonised equally (if not more). None of the attackers of the ‘9/11’ attack were Shiites or Iranians, yet Iran was targeted as the ‘Number One sponsor of Terror’, while the likes of the Wahhabised Kingdoms like Sauda Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar etc., who were factually responsible for exporting puritanical and extremist ideology globally were spared.

This makes the Islamic sectarian dissonance a matter of preference or choice, usually to the detriment of Shiites. The killing of the likes of Iranian General Qasim Soleimani who was at the forefront of taking on ISIL and who was incredibly like ned to Osama Bin Laden makes for selective and convenient narratives. Incidentally, even Hezbollah had deputed its fighters to fight along with Bashar Al Assad’s forces against ISIL and Al Qaida groups. This is not to suggest that Shiite militias like Hezbollah did not commit excesses or were in any way better or worse ~ but just that the pathological (and sometimes unjustifiable hatred towards Iran) has led to a harsher lens being applied on Iran and its proxies whereas the grave missteps of the Arab-Sheikdoms (almost all Sunni) have been glossed over in relative terms.

This leads to a global Shiite convergence and sense of isolation and discrimination, and the consequent valorisation of Shiite martyrs. Unsurprisingly, when General Soleimani or Nasrallah were killed, uproars and protests in the Shia-dominated enclaves of Kargil, Lucknow, Baramullah and Budgam were seen. The conflation of what happens in the Middle East with their own identity issues and sectarian tension in India needs to be understood. It is especially strange that while the Shiite leadership in India (especially in the Avadh region) was seen to be pro the current ruling dispensation ~ many cadres of the ruling dispensation are seen to be openly proIsrael and valourising the killing of Nasrallah, not knowing the layers of history, topical tensions and equations that fester with the Ummah.

The quest to oversimplify the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ into a binary issue could deeply affect the sensibilities of Shias who would naturally be aware of subtle differences, perspectives, and their own equation with India. Now, Iran may or may not up the ante immediately, but the wounds and fatalities of the current war will not be forgotten. They never are, and the increased polarisation and hatred between communities can only breed more extremism. This sectarian dimension is in parallel to the Palestinian (in Gaza Strip) emotions vis-à-vis Israel, as over 41,500 Palestinian deaths will exacerbate tensions, going forward.

While both Hamas and Hezbollah are terror organizations and many of their actions condemnable ~ to think of Israel as being innocent is to be either naïve, ignorant or downright partisan. In a perverse manner, the last speech of Nasrallah personified the vicious circle of revenge and retaliation that consumes the region when he said Israel’s belligerence would, “be met with a just punishment”. Now Israel is asking the US to put pressure on Iran and its proxies to not retaliate but Americans would do well to remember the deadly attack on their embassy in Beirut in 1983 that killed 63 people ~ it was conducted by the Shiite Islamic Jihad Organisation (percussor to Hezbollah), and one of people associated with the attack was Hassan Nasrallah.

Many wise voices in Israel (especially of the IDF war-heroes and senior veterans) are asking Benjamin Netanyahu to change track immediately for they fear the future. They have no love lost for Nasrallah, but fear that the current actions by Netanyahu will endanger the collective future of Israelis, indefinitely

(The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retdi, and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)