Israel’s continued presence in Lebanon: the ongoing standoff

Despite a ceasefire agreement that required a complete military withdrawal, Israel has maintained a presence in several areas of southern Lebanon. This decision has sparked concerns over a prolonged occupation and raised questions about the stability of the ceasefire.

Why Is Israel Still in Lebanon?

As part of a ceasefire deal that took effect on November 27, 2024, Israel was expected to withdraw its forces from Lebanon by January 26, 2025. The agreement, which involved Israeli forces and Hezbollah, stipulated that both parties would retreat from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN peacekeepers to take control.

However, Israel did not meet the deadline and continued to occupy multiple Lebanese villages. This led to an extension of the withdrawal deadline to February 18. Even after the revised date passed, Israeli forces remained in at least five key locations, prompting criticism from the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.

How Did This Conflict Start?

Tensions between Israel and Hezbollah escalated following the Israel-Gaza war, which began on October 7, 2023. In response to Israel’s military actions in Gaza, Hezbollah launched attacks on northern Israel, leading to months of border skirmishes. By October 1, 2024, Israel had intensified its operations, deploying ground troops into southern Lebanon with the stated objective of neutralizing Hezbollah’s threat and securing northern Israeli settlements.

During the conflict, Israeli strikes in Lebanon resulted in nearly 4,000 deaths, including a large number of civilians, while mass displacement affected both Lebanese and Israeli populations. Hezbollah, on the other hand, justified its actions as an effort to pressure Israel into ending its military campaign in Gaza.

Why Has Israel Not Withdrawn?

One of the key reasons for Israel’s ongoing presence is its claim that Lebanon has not fulfilled its part of the ceasefire agreement. Israel argues that it will not fully withdraw until the Lebanese army establishes full control over the south. Given that Hezbollah remains a dominant force in the region, Israel insists that its continued presence is necessary to ensure security.

Another factor is the broader geopolitical landscape. The United States, a key mediator in the ceasefire agreement, has historically aligned itself with Israel’s strategic interests. Despite being part of the peace-monitoring mechanism alongside France, the U.S. has not taken strong steps to pressure Israel into meeting its withdrawal commitments.

Some analysts believe that Israel’s refusal to leave could be a strategy to maintain leverage over Lebanon and Hezbollah. By occupying certain areas, Israel could be positioning itself for future negotiations or military operations.

Where Are Israeli Troops Staying?

Currently, Israeli forces remain stationed on five key hilltops along the Lebanese border:

Al-Aziyah

Al-Awaida

El-Hamames

Jabal Bilat

Labbouneh

Additionally, Israel continues to occupy the Shebaa Farms, a region that Lebanon claims as its own but which Israel considers part of the Golan Heights, an area annexed from Syria. This longstanding territorial dispute has been a source of friction between the two countries for decades.

How Has Lebanon Responded?

The Lebanese government has strongly condemned Israel’s continued presence, arguing that it violates the terms of the ceasefire. Lebanese officials insist that Israel must withdraw completely to restore sovereignty over the occupied areas.

President Joseph Aoun has voiced skepticism about Israel’s willingness to comply, warning that “the Israeli enemy cannot be trusted.” Meanwhile, Hezbollah has taken a firm stance, declaring that any Israeli presence in Lebanon constitutes an occupation. The group has urged the Lebanese government to take decisive action to ensure Israel’s withdrawal.

Hezbollah’s deputy leader, Naim Qassem, emphasized that Israel had “no excuse” to remain in Lebanon past the deadline and called on Lebanese authorities to uphold the agreement.

International Reactions and Legal Perspectives

The issue has drawn mixed reactions from the international community. While European diplomats have proposed replacing Israeli troops with UN peacekeepers to preserve stability, this suggestion has not gained traction. The UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, UNIFIL, has expressed concern over the delay, noting that Israel’s actions violate United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006).

Legal scholars are divided on the issue. Some argue that Israel’s continued occupation is a clear violation of international law. Srinivas Burra, a professor of international law, stated that Israel’s invasion of Lebanon was illegal from the outset and that its refusal to withdraw contradicts the ceasefire agreement.

Others, like Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin, suggest that Israel may have a legal argument if it can prove that Lebanon has failed to uphold essential parts of the ceasefire deal. However, he noted that Israel should provide a clear timeline for withdrawal if it intends to claim temporary occupation.

The situation remains tense, with the potential for renewed conflict. Israel has warned that it is prepared to resume military operations, and its forces have already targeted civilians attempting to return to their homes. On January 26, the original withdrawal deadline, at least 22 people were killed by Israeli troops.

On the other hand, Hezbollah has suffered significant losses, including key leaders and military resources, making it less likely to seek an immediate escalation. Still, the group has vowed to resist any prolonged Israeli occupation.

Diplomatic efforts are ongoing, with Lebanon engaging the United States, France, and the United Nations to find a resolution. Lebanese Foreign Minister Joe Rajji has suggested that UNIFIL take control of the five occupied areas, but Israel has rejected this proposal.

As Israel continues to defy withdrawal agreements, Lebanon faces an uphill battle to assert its sovereignty. Whether diplomacy or conflict will dictate the future remains uncertain, but the risk of prolonged instability is growing.