Fifty Years Since the Lebanese Civil War: What Role Did “Israel” Play in Fueling It?

By Charbel Abi Nader

Lebanon — Fifty years after the outbreak of the Lebanese civil war, the Lebanese people continue to live in challenging and unstable conditions—even though the Taif Agreement, signed in Saudi Arabia on October 22, 1989, officially ended that tragic chapter. The wounds of internal strife remain deeply embedded, along with an ongoing sense of uncertainty about the future—echoes of the same tensions that once ignited the catastrophic conflict.

Despite the pain, the anniversary inevitably evokes haunting images and memories of violence and tragedy that left their mark on every facet of Lebanese society. Some argue that revisiting these events each year is both emotionally taxing and impractical, yet the exercise remains essential. It offers a necessary opportunity to reflect, analyze and attempt to understand the root causes of the war—so that history is not repeated.

It is true that the persistent power struggles in Lebanon—often driven by sectarian and personal interests at the expense of national unity—have historically contributed to internal conflict. But beyond domestic factors, an external force played a pivotal role in igniting and sustaining the war: namely, the occupation of Palestine by “Israel,” and Lebanon’s fraught position regarding armed Palestinian resistance operating from its southern border.

The 1969 Cairo Agreement, which authorized Palestinian armed operations from Lebanese territory, left Lebanon deeply divided. Some factions firmly supported the resistance against the “Israeli” occupation, while others opposed it. This division ultimately led to the outbreak of violence in April 1975, which swiftly escalated, engulfing the nation and splitting Beirut into East and West, dragging the country into a 15-year-long cycle of war.

Yet “Israel’s” role was not limited to merely triggering the conflict. It actively worked to fuel it on multiple fronts. It armed and trained Lebanese militias, turning them into proxies. Indirectly, it provided political and media support, cultivated sectarian enclaves, and encouraged separatist tendencies—with the objective of dismantling Lebanon’s national cohesion.

“Israel’s” involvement escalated further with direct military intervention, particularly during the 1978 invasion of southern Lebanon and the full-scale 1982 invasion, which reached the mountains and the capital, Beirut. These aggressions deepened internal divisions and significantly obstructed national reconciliation efforts, dragging out the war.

Nevertheless, Lebanon responded with determination. With the support of its national army, civilians, and a broadly backed resistance, much of the occupied territory was eventually liberated. Still, disagreements among Lebanese factions continued—especially over the legitimacy of armed resistance, as “Israel” continued to occupy the Shebaa Farms and Kfarchouba Hills.

Today, Lebanon remains mired in internal disputes—particularly around how to confront the enemy. While some call for normalization with “Israel,” often under foreign pressure and as a precondition for reconstruction aid, others view such moves as unacceptable concessions that compromise national dignity.

From the outbreak of the civil war in 1975 to the most recent aggression against Lebanon and Gaza following Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, “Israel” has played a central and destructive role. Its objectives remain consistent:

• To undermine Lebanon’s ability to resist “Israeli” occupation in Palestine and elsewhere in the Arab world—militarily and politically.
• To leverage economic reconstruction and recovery as tools of pressure, pushing Lebanon toward normalization, often in coordination with regional and international actors.
• To erode Lebanon’s pluralistic and united social fabric by fueling internal discord, thereby securing its own ethnocentric project.

At every stage of Lebanon’s turmoil, “Israel” has acted as the primary agent of division—manipulating the country’s internal weaknesses in order to keep peace, sovereignty and unity perpetually out of reach.