In recent days, Israel Air Force aircraft have repeatedly flown over Beirut to signal Israel's dissatisfaction with the diplomatic situation that emerged following the war and with the nonimplementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought an end to the fighting after it was accepted by all sides. The assumption that a provocation of this sort over Lebanon's airspace will somehow further Israel's interests has been part of Israel's security policy for years. Using supersonic booms as a menacing harassment has become part of the Israeli government's operational arsenal: a sort of forceful message that is supposed to hint that Israel is capable of much more, but for now is making do with the minimum.

Having destroyed the Dahiya quarter in Beirut, it is doubtful that the air force needs to send Lebanon any further signals about its capabilities. The message has apparently been fully understood, but it is doubtful that it had brought about the desired results. It may have even achieved the opposite effect: strengthening Hezbollah as a political actor in Lebanon.

There is nothing like overflights of Beirut, especially the kind that terrorize the residents, to help Hezbollah justify its continued arming against Israel. Creating a constant atmosphere of war, instead of a permanent cease-fire, makes things easier for those interested in such fighting. The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah might also bolster Hezbollah's standing instead of weakening it.
Lebanon is experiencing an internal political crisis that could alter the character of the state and elevate Hezbollah and its supporters to power. It is doubtful that this is the sort of outcome that those supporting the war thought about when they decided to respond with force to the abduction of two soldiers. Lebanon's Shi'a population maintains that after the war, Fouad Siniora's government neglected them and is in no hurry to rebuild southern Lebanon. The argument that the Lebanese government is not treating the country's largest minority fairly strengthens the Shi'a camp. It is on the basis of this claim that Nasrallah is demanding the establishment of a national unity government in which Hezbollah and the other Shi'a party, Amal, would be properly represented. Nasrallah is also trying to include representatives of Michel Aoun, who is considered pro-Syrian, in the government. If his demands are accepted, the Shi'a bloc will have veto power over all government decisions.

In such a sensitive situation, it is doubtful that Israel's provocation over Beirut was wise. The violation of Lebanon's sovereign airspace is in itself a violation of the cease-fire agreement, and when its purpose was political rather than defense-related, it seems doubtful that it reflected a far-sighted diplomatic vision. Nonetheless, it is clear that Israel should not accept the continued flow of weapons from Syria into Lebanon.

The flights over Beirut are currently helping Hezbollah rather than hurting it. There are enough diplomatic ways for Israel to express its protest. The violation of Lebanese sovereignty should not be considered the first resort, nor should it be seen as a trivial matter.