Israel to Retain Strategic Positions in Lebanon Despite Withdrawal Deadline
Source: Rerum Novarum
Executive Summary
Israel has announced that it will maintain military positions in five strategic locations inside Lebanon beyond the February 18 withdrawal deadline, citing security concerns and the need to monitor Hezbollah’s activities. Lebanese officials, including President Joseph Aoun and Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem, have strongly opposed the move, warning of potential consequences if Israeli forces do not fully withdraw. The U.S. has reportedly signaled approval for Israel’s partial withdrawal while negotiations over a final resolution continue.
Analysis
Israel’s continued presence in southern Lebanon represents a significant deviation from the ceasefire terms agreed upon in November 2024. While the truce called for a full Israeli withdrawal, Hezbollah’s redeployment north of the Litani River, and the Lebanese military’s assumption of security responsibilities in the south, Israel’s military leadership has insisted that remaining in these five positions is necessary for protecting northern Israeli communities. These locations, including high ground with strategic oversight of border towns, allow Israel to monitor Hezbollah’s activities and deter future attacks.
The U.S. and France, key brokers of the ceasefire, are playing a delicate balancing act. While Washington has reportedly backed Israel’s decision to hold certain positions, France has advocated for a full withdrawal, potentially deploying additional UN peacekeepers to fill the security vacuum. Lebanese officials fear that Israel’s continued presence could serve as a pretext for prolonged occupation, a concern heightened by historical precedent—Israel’s last occupation of southern Lebanon lasted from 1982 to 2000.
Hezbollah has made it clear that any Israeli forces remaining past the deadline will be considered an occupying force, raising the risk of renewed hostilities. Sheikh Naim Qassem has called on the Lebanese government to enforce Israel’s full withdrawal and has hinted that Hezbollah reserves the right to take military action if necessary. This escalatory rhetoric suggests that, even if large-scale clashes do not resume immediately, tensions along the border will remain high, with the potential for sporadic skirmishes or retaliatory strikes.
Another key concern is the fate of displaced Lebanese civilians. More than 1.2 million people have been displaced by Israeli airstrikes and ground operations, with reconstruction costs estimated at $11 billion. Israel’s military insists that Hezbollah’s infrastructure has been largely dismantled in the border region, yet ongoing airstrikes and the destruction of civilian homes suggest that Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah remains active. As long as Israeli forces remain inside Lebanon, Hezbollah is unlikely to fully demobilize, undermining the ceasefire’s long-term viability.
Politically, Lebanon’s ability to enforce the ceasefire terms is severely limited. The Lebanese army, while prepared to deploy in vacated areas, lacks the resources and political autonomy to challenge Hezbollah’s influence in the south. Additionally, Lebanon’s leadership remains divided on how to handle Hezbollah’s military presence, with some factions supporting integration into the state security apparatus and others calling for complete disarmament. Israel, for its part, has stated that it would prefer to see the Lebanese army take full control of the border but has threatened unilateral action if Hezbollah is not disarmed.
In the short term, diplomatic efforts will likely focus on resolving the status of the five Israeli-held positions. If no agreement is reached, the situation could quickly spiral into another round of conflict, with Hezbollah using Israeli troop presence as justification for resuming attacks. The U.S. and its allies will have to weigh the risks of supporting Israel’s extended stay against the potential for reigniting full-scale war in Lebanon.
