(JNS) Despite the 60-day test period for the northern ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, at the end of which, the Israeli military is supposed to withdraw from the Land of the Cedars, the Israel Defense Forces remains engaged in frequent operations targeting Hezbollah positions in Southern Lebanon.
For example, on Jan. 12, the IDF conducted what it described as “intelligence-based strikes on a number of Hezbollah terror targets in Lebanon.”
The strikes were preceded by the presentation of intelligence to the ceasefire monitoring mechanism, the military said, consisting of representatives of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), the United States, France and the United Nations, which failed to address the threats posed by the targets.
The targets included “a rocket launcher site, a military site and routes along the Syria-Lebanon border used to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah,” the IDF said, while stressing its commitment to “remove any threat to the State of Israel” and preventing “any attempt by the Hezbollah terrorist organization to rebuild its forces in accordance with the ceasefire understandings.”
As such, concerns are growing about whether the Lebanese Armed Forces can fulfill its obligations to clamp down on illegal Hezbollah activity in Southern Lebanon under the ceasefire agreement.
Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, a senior research fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, and former head of the Research and Assessment Division of Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate, told JNS that the IDF is enforcing the ceasefire not only through its presence in the region but also via surveillance and targeted strikes beyond the immediate areas under its deployment.
“We see strikes in the last 24 hours in areas along the crossings between Syria and Lebanon. We saw strikes on various military targets that were not properly addressed by the Lebanese,” said Kuperwasser.
He added that while these operations aim to prevent Hezbollah from rearming in violation of the ceasefire, they also highlight a key difference from past engagements, which Israel did not actively enforce.
“Unlike the reality under U.N. [Security Council] Resolution 1701 before the [Swords of Iron/Northern Arrows] war, when we refrained from striking Lebanon, now we strike if the Lebanese Army fails to fulfill its obligations. We will report violations to the monitoring committee, and if they act, excellent. If they do not act, we will act ourselves.
“Can this be done 100%? No, because some of these villagers are Hezbollah operatives, and they live in these villages,” he said. “But it must be insured that there is no Hezbollah presence—in the form of armed Hezbollah operatives—in these places.”
Kuperwasser expressed doubts about the LAF’s ability to deliver on its responsibilities, particularly under its new leadership.
“The hope is that the Lebanese Army, especially now that there is a new president and a new government in Lebanon, will fulfill its duties. But we have not yet seen a sufficiently effective deployment of the Lebanese Army,” he said.
He added that while Israel intends to fulfill its side of the signed agreement and withdraw, delays in the IDF withdrawal could nevertheless occur if the LAF is not prepared to take full control. “If the reality proves that they are not ready, it may be necessary to postpone the implementation [of the withdrawal],” Kuperwasser said.
“Israel signed an agreement. It agreed to the understandings, and intends to implement them. If the other side cannot fulfill its part of the agreement, we need to either reopen it, extend the timeline, or find other ways to address the issue,” Kuperwasser said.
Airstrikes not enough
Dr. Yossi Mansharof, an expert on Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Shi’ite militias at the Misgav Institute, argued that the IDF faces a “problematic situation” in which it is enforcing the ceasefire while the LAF fails to take meaningful action.
The IDF, he said, is essentially enforcing the ceasefire without the monitoring mechanism fulfilling its mission or enforcing the ceasefire itself.
“The Lebanese Army is not addressing the information transferred by the IDF regarding Hezbollah’s presence south of the Litani River. The Americans are determined to continue with this outline, and therefore, it seems that the best Israel can do is reconsider whether it can withdraw from areas it took from Hezbollah, which should be a significant bargaining chip in applying the ceasefire agreement.”
Mansharof noted that airstrikes alone cannot provide a long-term solution, adding, “As proven in the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, airstrikes are of limited effectiveness. As long as the Lebanese Army is not fulfilling the role assigned to it by all sides in the ceasefire, the IDF should delay its withdrawal and demand that the Lebanese government acts in line with the agreed ceasefire mechanism.”
The situation is further complicated by international pressure, according to Mansharof.
“Israel is expected to face international, and particularly American, pressure,” he cautioned, referring to a statement made by U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein during a recent visit to Beirut, in which he reiterated Washington’s commitment to ensuring the IDF’s full withdrawal by Jan. 26.
However, Mansharof argued that the LAF, under the leadership of newly elected Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, is ill-prepared to meet the demands of the ceasefire.
“It seems that the Lebanese Army is unable to transition from a period in which it cooperated, in various ways, under Aoun’s command, with Hezbollah, to a situation in which it acts directly against Hezbollah,” Mansharof warned.
He expressed similar concerns regarding the Shi’ite population in Southern Lebanon, which has historically cooperated with Hezbollah.
“It is clear that this raises a lot of concern among the residents of the [Israeli] border communities,” Mansharof said, adding that Hezbollah operatives have used civilian homes to store weapons and ammunition.
