Just over a month ago, on November 27, Israel and Lebanon agreed a ceasefire to end nearly 14 months of fighting, which began on October 8, 2023 when Hezbollah launched rockets and missiles at Israel in solidarity with Hamas’s brutal attack the day before.
Under the broad terms of the deal – one brokered only after Israel delivered staggering blows to Hezbollah and invaded southern Lebanon three months ago – the IDF would withdraw from Lebanon in a phased manner within 60 days, as the Lebanese Army troops would move south of the Litani River, take up positions there alongside UNIFIL forces, and dismantle all unauthorized military infrastructure.
It’s a promising plan. The challenge is ensuring that it is implemented.
IDF officials have said repeatedly in recent days that the army is preparing for the possibility of staying in southern Lebanon beyond the 60-day truce period because the Lebanese Army is not effectively moving south and taking control of Hezbollah positions.
In other words, the IDF is letting it be known that if Lebanon does not uphold its part of the bargain, neither will Israel. If there is no complete Lebanese Army deployment and dismantling of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in southern Lebanon as stipulated in the deal, there will be no Israeli exit.
We wholeheartedly support this position.
Northern residents need security
The 60,000 residents of the northern communities who have been displaced for nearly 15 months will not return home unless they feel secure. And they will not feel secure if they see that the ceasefire agreement is not being honored by the other side.
So far, they apparently don’t feel secure, as only a trickle are returning to the border communities – waiting to see if this time, things will be different and Hezbollah and Lebanon will honor their commitments.
Israel has been badly burned in the past when agreements that look great on paper – such as UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which put an end to the Second Lebanon War – are not implemented on the ground.
Like the current ceasefire accord, that resolution also called for the Lebanese Army to deploy south of the Litani River, dismantle Hezbollah installations, and enforce a ban on the sale of arms and weapons to Hezbollah.
But none of that happened, yet Israel did little in response. Jerusalem saw how Hezbollah and Lebanon were completely ignoring the clauses of that agreement but allowed them to get away with it.
Why? Because the Jewish state sanctified quiet and did not want to challenge Hezbollah and Lebanon again, hoping the international community would ensure the implementation of the resolution.
That proved a futile hope. The international community is not going to do Israel’s work for it.
The IDF’s current stance – that it may remain in Lebanon beyond 60 days if the ceasefire’s terms are not met – reflects this hard-earned lesson. If the other side does not honor the agreement, there can be no agreement.
Signaling an intention to remain in southern Lebanon if the terms of the ceasefire are not honored sends the right message: this time, things will be different.
Israel has made this message clear from the outset. Within hours of the ceasefire taking effect, Hezbollah tested Israel’s resolve by sending operatives into Kafr Kila directly across from Metulla, and villagers began returning to southern Lebanon in defiance of the agreement’s terms.
All of this was designed to test Israel’s resolve. Would Israel let small violations pass, even though they would eventually add up to a wave of violations that would sweep away the effectiveness of the agreement? Or would it take steps to implement the accord?
Israel opted for decisiveness. Since the ceasefire began, the IDF has acted repeatedly against violations across Lebanon, making clear its resolve to enforce the truce.
Staying in Lebanon, if necessary, reinforces this stance. The days when Israel ignores actions inimical to its interests and security taking place just across the border – especially actions prohibited by international agreements – are over.
This message is not only intended for Israel’s enemies. It is also for its own citizens. Only such resolve can assure the displaced residents of northern Israel that it is safe to return home.