Israel unlikely to withdraw soon from five key positions in Lebanon for ‘strategic reasons’

Sources say Israel has convinced US of need to remain

Israeli soldiers walk along the buffer zone between Northern Israel and Southern Lebanon in February. Getty Images

Israeli forces are unlikely to withdraw from five military positions in southern Lebanon any time soon, despite calls from Lebanon for a full pullout, Lebanese, French and US sources have told The National, citing “strategic reasons” as the rationale behind Israel’s continued presence.

The Israeli military has maintained its positions since a ceasefire took effect in late November between Israel and the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah, following more than a year of hostilities, including two months of intense conflict during which Israel deployed ground troops. Israel was scheduled to withdraw from southern Lebanon by February 18.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said last week that his country's forces would remain “indefinitely” in what he described as a “buffer zone”.

“There is a buffer zone. It wasn't easy, but I stood my ground, and we received a green light from the United States. We provided them with a map, and we are staying indefinitely. This is a situation-dependent decision, not a time-dependent one,” said Mr Katz, according to a statement issued by his office.

A senior Lebanese military source told The National that the US was initially opposed to Israel’s presence in Lebanon. “This appears to have changed now; the Israelis managed to convince the Americans that they need to stay in these five locations,” said the source.

The five strategically important points are located along the length of the shared border, with hilltops overlooking vital areas providing surveillance and defence capabilities. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and the country's other leaders have declared any Israeli presence on Lebanese soil an "occupation".

A US official, who like others in the story requested anonymity to speak about sensitive matters, outlined two sets of conditions for a full Israeli pullout.

“The first set involves the redeployment of the Lebanese army in the south Litani sector and the removal of Hezbollah’s apparatus from that area, including dismantling its remaining infrastructure and weapons caches,” said the official.

“The second set of conditions requires Lebanon to elect a president, form a new government and adopt a ministerial declaration that bans Hezbollah’s military activity, ensuring that the Lebanese state is the sole authority responsible for arms, which has now been accomplished.”

The election of Joseph Aoun as the country's head of state in January dealt a major blow to Hezbollah, which had long opposed his candidacy. Mr Aoun’s rise to power was backed by the US, France and Saudi Arabia. Last month, Lebanon formed a new government, and, for the first time since 2005, removed any reference to “armed resistance” from its ministerial statement, marking a significant shift in official policy.

Following a partial withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanese territory last month, the Lebanese military expanded its deployment across southern border towns. This was carried out in co-ordination with the Quintet committee, which is overseeing the ceasefire mechanism, and UN peacekeeping forces.

“There are no issues with the Lebanese army’s deployment in the south. The forces are already there, clearing the towns so residents can safely return,” said the military source. “The Israelis don’t want to give up the five hilltops because they see them as key monitoring and support centres. These positions overlook southern Syria, effectively linking their network.”

Shortly after the fall of the regime of the Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad in December, Israel pushed through a buffer zone between the occupied Golan Heights and southern Syria, establishing military positions inside a UN-monitored demilitarised zone. Israeli forces have remained there since, despite protests by Syria’s new government and the UN.

French proposal

France has proposed deploying its own forces in southern Lebanon or expanding the UN presence to expedite Israel’s withdrawal. The proposal, however, has been rejected by Israel, according to three sources.

"The objective was to ensure that the concerns of both sides were addressed – to reassure Israeli security but not at the expense of Lebanon’s sovereignty," a French diplomatic source told The National. "This is natural as we are part of the mechanism committee. We are working closely with the US to maintain open channels with the belligerents."

Some 700 French soldiers are part of the Unifil established in 1978 following violence on the Israel-Lebanon border.

The US official said Israel dismissed the French proposal on security grounds and did not face pressure from Washington to compromise. “In addition to security concerns, there’s a long-term strategic reasoning to keep the Lebanese government in check and, eventually, push Lebanon toward a long-term peace agreement with Israel. It’s a long-game, steady-state approach.”

Lebanese army support

Sources told The National that the US briefly froze funding of Lebanon's army before resuming it under strict conditions. “There must be no Hezbollah military presence south of the Litani River – or anywhere in Lebanon, for that matter – or else the funding will be cut, and the ceasefire could collapse as well,” said the military source.

The US is the primary funder of the Lebanese army, providing hundreds of millions of dollars in aid annually. This includes weapons, training and equipment such as armoured vehicles, artillery and surveillance drones. Since 2006, the US has given more than $3 billion in security assistance to the army, according to a fact sheet published in January by the US State Department.

Since returning to power, US President Donald Trump has taken quick action to end many international aid programmes, largely run by the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, with most of the agency's staff sacked or placed on administrative leave.

Many view the international community’s support for the Lebanese military as an essential requirement in implementing UN Resolution 1701, which calls for the disarming of armed groups in Lebanon – seen as a reference to Hezbollah.

“The US has been and remains Lebanon’s most enduring partner. Over 80 per cent of all military investment comes from the US. The current administration remains committed to a safe and secure region, but that could change,” said the US official.

The official added that Washington cannot act alone in supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces. “Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE need to bolster Lebanon now rather than later. This cannot be a ‘wait-and-see’ experiment. President Aoun has already demonstrated that the future cannot be shaped in isolation – it requires strong regional partnerships.”

Bilal Saab, senior managing director of Trends US and a former Pentagon official in the first Trump administration who oversaw assistance to the Lebanese army, said: “This is phase three of the US relationship with Lebanon's military.”

“Phase one began in 2007, shortly after the Nahr Al Bared war. Phase two culminated in the Fajr Al Joroud operation against ISIS. Now, we’re in phase three, which should focus on broader security and national defence,” said Mr Saab. “The US has a unique window of opportunity in Lebanon today – it must seize it.”