By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a ceasefire extension, Hezbollah-led border riots have subsided, though the IDF continues to repel Lebanese civilians from restricted areas. Despite the ceasefire, the IDF conducted air strikes on Hezbollah weapons due to agreement violations, and maintains a significant military presence in southern Lebanon, prioritizing Israeli security. The IDF plans to utilize the remaining ceasefire period to dismantle terrorist infrastructure and collect weapons, with a new defense concept establishing outposts between the border and Israeli communities. This increased security presence aims to ensure the safe return of displaced Israeli citizens, while acknowledging the potential for renewed Hezbollah activity.
Read the original article here
The IDF’s stated refusal to withdraw from southern Lebanon until the Lebanese army demonstrates sufficient control over its territory is a complex issue stemming from a deeply troubled history and the present reality of Hezbollah’s influence. The core of the matter is a lack of trust. Israel doesn’t believe the Lebanese army, currently hindered by internal conflicts and the pervasive power of Hezbollah, can effectively guarantee the safety of Israeli civilians living near the border.
This distrust isn’t unfounded. Lebanon has a history marked by internal strife, civil war, and foreign interventions, resulting in a fragile state where numerous actors compete for power. Hezbollah, a powerful non-state actor, operates with considerable autonomy within Lebanon, often defying the authority of the Lebanese government and UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. The Lebanese army, while possessing resources, is hampered by its inability, or unwillingness, to effectively counter Hezbollah’s influence and activities.
Israel’s perspective is that the responsibility for protecting its citizens rests squarely with the IDF, not with a Lebanese army demonstrably unable to control its own territory. The recent conflict only heightened this concern, with Hezbollah launching attacks from within Lebanese territory, demonstrating the vulnerability of the area and the ineffectiveness of existing security mechanisms. The establishment of Israeli military outposts between border communities and the fence is a direct response to this perceived vulnerability; it’s a proactive measure to secure Israeli border areas rather than an attempt at long-term occupation.
The IDF’s planned actions within the extended ceasefire period reflect this: targeted operations against Hezbollah infrastructure and weapons caches in southern Lebanon are meant to minimize future threats. Simultaneously, the establishment of the security zone, which some are calling an “Israeli security zone,” aims to create a buffer zone that directly safeguards Israeli citizens while the Lebanese army attempts to reassert control. The idea is that the IDF will only withdraw once the Lebanese army’s improved control effectively renders this additional security zone unnecessary.
However, the situation presents a difficult dilemma. While the desire for an Israeli withdrawal is widespread, the conditions for a safe and secure retreat remain absent. Simply handing control back to the Lebanese army would risk a return to pre-conflict vulnerabilities, potentially jeopardizing the safety of Israeli civilians and allowing Hezbollah to reconstitute its operational capabilities. The IDF’s actions are therefore not solely based on punitive measures against Hezbollah, but also on a reasoned calculation of risk assessment.
The Lebanese government’s role is also crucial. The capacity, or lack thereof, of the Lebanese state to assert its authority, to counter Hezbollah’s influence and to effectively govern the country is a major roadblock to a resolution. The presence of Hezbollah, its significant military capabilities, and its deep penetration into Lebanese institutions severely limit the Lebanese army’s ability to act independently. Even if the Lebanese army were to temporarily reclaim the territory, the possibility of Hezbollah regaining control once Israel withdraws is very real. The deeply rooted sectarian divisions and pervasive corruption within the Lebanese government complicate this situation further.
The international community has a significant role to play as well. The UN’s involvement through UNIFIL, while present, is clearly insufficient. A more robust international effort to address Lebanon’s systemic problems is necessary. This includes addressing Hezbollah’s power, supporting the Lebanese army’s capacity building, promoting political reform, and fostering national reconciliation. Without significant internal reform and external support, it is difficult to envision a near-term scenario where the Lebanese army can fully control its southern territory to the satisfaction of Israel.
The IDF’s position, while potentially viewed as assertive, is also a reflection of a realistic assessment of the situation on the ground. Their willingness to withdraw hinges on demonstrable and sustained improvements in the Lebanese army’s capacity and willingness to control its own territory and effectively neutralize Hezbollah’s threat, which is unlikely to occur without fundamental changes within Lebanon. Until that occurs, the IDF’s presence remains a complex reality—one born out of necessity, rather than simply a desire for prolonged military occupation.