The January 26 deadline for the IDF’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, as stipulated in the 60-day ceasefire agreement, leaves critical questions unanswered about how Jerusalem can enforce a Hezbollah-free zone after the military leaves.
One possibility could see Israel maintain some military posts in Southern Lebanon while launching airstrikes, and possibly targeted ground raids, in response to intelligence of new Hezbollah entrenchment activities.
There are elements within the defence establishment that align with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position that Israel should consider maintaining a presence in Southern Lebanon beyond the deadline. However, this decision hinges on approval from United States President Donald Trump, as Army Radio reported this week.
Professor Eyal Zisser, vice rector and holder of the Yona and Dina Ettinger Chair in Contemporary History of the Middle East at Tel Aviv University, told JNS that he was skeptical about the Lebanese Army enforcing control over Southern Lebanon or countering Hezbollah.
“The Lebanese Army cannot, and likely does not want to, assert its authority or force Hezbollah to withdraw from the area, let alone dismantle its military infrastructure,” Zisser said.
In Lebanon, "they simply hope that we will withdraw and leave matters alone—until the next war, hoping that in the meantime Hezbollah will maintain a low profile,” he added.
But, should Israel refuse to assume such a passive role, what are the alternative routes it could take?
Operate when necessary
Israeli Navy Cmdr. (res) Eyal Pinko, a researcher at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, described a possible reality post-January 26 as one where the IDF would no longer maintain full control over Southern Lebanon, but could still operate when necessary.
"Israel turned to Trump to receive approval to preserve five outposts" in Southern Lebanon, Pinko said, adding that the Lebanese forces will limit IDF activities significantly and that the Israeli military will seek to deconflict with its Lebanese counterpart.
Regarding Hezbollah’s likely response to future Israeli operation, Pinko said the group is focused on rebuilding its capabilities over the next two years and will likely seek to avoid direct confrontations with the IDF, particularly clashes that could lead to further escalation.
"I think that there won’t be a significant Hezbollah response to the IDF but rather symbolic actions, such as rocket fire or tactical skirmishes if there are IDF moves interpreted as unusual in the area,” he said.
Inherently asymmetric
Lt Col. (res) Sarit Zehavi, founder and president of the Alma Research and Education Center, said: “The ceasefire agreement that Israel signed is inherently asymmetric. Under its terms, Israel is obligated to withdraw within 60 days, while the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are merely required to commence implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, an 18-year-old mandate that has never been fully enforced.”
Zehavi emphasized the ongoing ineffectiveness of the LAF in enforcing Resolution 1701, pointing to a recent discovery of outdated, poorly maintained rockets purportedly seized by the force. “Such actions fall far short of the robust enforcement needed to dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in Southern Lebanon or prevent Hezbollah’s re-entrenchment,” she said.
While the LAF has redeployed troops to areas south of the Litani River as stipulated by Resolution 1701, this measure remains inadequate, she argued.
“True enforcement requires the removal of Hezbollah’s weaponry from civilian homes and strongholds, their transfer to secure locations, and transparent reporting.”
Zehavi warned of the possible consequences of a failed ceasefire, including renewed hostilities that would threaten civilians in northern Israel. For the ceasefire to succeed, she argued, Lebanon’s government must take decisive action to disarm Hezbollah and assert its authority.
“Without confronting Hezbollah’s role as a state within a state, disarmament efforts of Hezbollah will remain ineffective,” she said.
The United States, she argued, has a critical role to play as both mediator and guarantor of the truce, especially in holding Lebanon accountable for commitments under Resolution 1701.
For Lebanon, the choice is stark, Zehavi argued. It must it either assert sovereignty as an independent state or continue serving as a passive host for Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy.
Without addressing this core issue, the ceasefire and any subsequent agreements will remain temporary and unstable solutions to a deeply entrenched underlying threat, she said.
