The November agreement aimed to bring peace to southern Lebanon after a devastating war, stipulating a withdrawal of both Hezbollah and Israeli forces, replaced by the Lebanese Army and U.N. peacekeepers. However, as the 60-day deadline expired on Sunday, the situation on the ground was drastically different. Israeli forces remained entrenched in parts of southern Lebanon, prompting fears of a prolonged occupation and renewed conflict. Israeli authorities warned Lebanese citizens against returning to their homes in several villages, heightening anxieties and creating a tense atmosphere in the region. The Lebanese government reported casualties as civilians attempted to return to their villages, encountering Israeli attacks. This escalating tension put Lebanon’s newly appointed leaders, President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister-designate Nawaf Salam, in a precarious position, challenging their ability to assert control over the situation and manage the powerful influence of Hezbollah.
The continued Israeli presence threatens to undermine the delicate political momentum in Lebanon, where a concerted effort was underway to consolidate military power under the state’s authority, challenging Hezbollah’s justification for maintaining its extensive arsenal. Hezbollah, which has long positioned itself as the sole defender of Lebanon’s borders, gains renewed legitimacy and support if Israel remains. This situation jeopardizes the nascent political movement aiming to disarm Hezbollah and strengthen the Lebanese state’s military control. Israeli officials justified their continued presence by claiming Hezbollah’s ongoing activity in the south and expressing doubts about the Lebanese Army’s capacity to control the group. Hezbollah, while reaffirming its commitment to the truce, did not directly address these accusations. The Lebanese Army, ready to deploy in the south, blamed the delay on Israel’s reluctance to withdraw.
Even before the deadline, thousands of displaced Lebanese citizens prepared to return to their homes in the south, despite Israeli warnings. The main highway leading south from Beirut saw heavy traffic, even as automated calls from the Israeli military warned of the risks of returning. Despite these warnings and reports of Israeli forces bulldozing and blocking roads in the south, many Lebanese residents remained resolute in their decision to return home, indicating a strong desire to reclaim their lives and land. This defiance highlighted the complex dynamics on the ground, with Lebanese citizens caught between official warnings and their determination to return to normalcy.
The Lebanese Army’s warnings about unexploded ordnance further complicated the situation, adding another layer of risk to the return of displaced residents. The Israeli occupation of approximately 70% of the territories captured during the recent conflict, as reported by the U.N., underlined the significant challenges in implementing the withdrawal agreement. The continued occupation fueled the narrative of Hezbollah as the protector of Lebanon against Israeli aggression, potentially strengthening the group’s political position. While both sides expressed a desire to avoid renewed conflict, the Israeli occupation presented a significant obstacle to achieving lasting peace.
Hezbollah’s response to the continued Israeli occupation remains uncertain. While some officials hinted at retaliation, others placed the onus of reclaiming occupied territories on the Lebanese government, a tactic often employed by the group. This strategic shift of responsibility likely reflected Hezbollah’s weakened state after months of intense conflict. The group’s military ranks were depleted, and its support base was weary from displacement and destruction. Furthermore, its patron, Iran, also faced challenges, impacting its ability to provide financial support for rebuilding efforts. The toppling of an Iranian ally in Syria further complicated matters, disrupting Hezbollah’s supply lines for weapons and funds.
These setbacks weakened Hezbollah’s grip on Lebanese politics, paving the way for significant political shifts. The election of President Aoun and the nomination of Prime Minister Salam, both figures previously opposed by Hezbollah, demonstrated the changing political landscape. These developments, significant in a country where Hezbollah traditionally held considerable sway, underscored the group’s diminished influence. However, experts caution against underestimating Hezbollah’s resilience, especially if the Israeli occupation persists. A continued Israeli presence could galvanize Hezbollah’s support base, reinforcing its image as a protector against Israeli aggression and potentially reigniting the cycle of conflict. The complex interplay of regional politics, internal Lebanese dynamics, and the continued Israeli occupation makes the future of southern Lebanon uncertain, with the potential for renewed conflict looming large.
