Why Israel Isn’t Leaving Lebanon Any Time Soon

THE NATIONAL INTEREST | ALEXANDER LANGLOIS

Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon has become an open-ended occupation since its October 2024 invasion, according to Alexander Langlois. The eighth round of Trilateral Framework talks, hosted by the United States, ended without progress on Hezbollah’s disarmament or an Israeli withdrawal. Upwards of 350,000 Lebanese remain displaced while Israel maintains a southern buffer zone.

The framework, established in June, seeks verifiable Hezbollah disarmament and Israeli withdrawal from sovereign Lebanese territory. Neither goal is close. Langlois contends that Israeli operations continue despite two paper ceasefires, with thousands of Lebanese killed or injured and more than 1 million displaced at one point. Hezbollah has been excluded from, and rejects, the talks; Israel retains practical control over withdrawal timing and disarmament assessments. Nearly 80 per cent of Jewish Israelis support operations in Lebanon, and Israeli parties are competing on militarised platforms before Knesset elections. The likely trajectory is a harder, more extended occupation.

Comment

The central difficulty in the Trilateral Framework is that its two objectives are sequenced rather than simultaneous. Israel is to judge when disarmament is sufficient before withdrawing, while Hezbollah treats continued occupation as proof that disarmament would leave Lebanon exposed. That structure gives each side a reason to wait out the other, and it reduces the Lebanese Armed Forces to an intermediary expected to deliver a result neither principal accepts.

The historical parallel is Israel’s 1982–2000 occupation of southern Lebanon. That prolonged presence contributed to Hezbollah’s formation and gave its resistance narrative a durable local foundation; Israel eventually withdrew in 2000 after an 18-year occupation. The analogy does not prove the same outcome will recur, but it explains why Hezbollah can present continued Israeli presence as validation for retaining weapons, while Israel can cite those weapons as grounds for remaining.

Today’s setting differs because the conflict is also tied to Gaza, Palestine and Iran, while President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam seek Hezbollah’s disarmament. That creates a three-way tension: Beirut wants state authority restored, Hezbollah resists disarmament under occupation, and Israel controls the timetable for leaving. The practical question is whether the Trilateral Framework can separate those issues before the occupation hardens further.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If the Trilateral Framework keeps disarmament and Israeli withdrawal sequenced rather than simultaneous, does it reproduce the 1982–2000 dynamic that strengthened Hezbollah?

The pattern suggests that sequencing makes each side’s core demand conditional on the other’s concession, reproducing the mutual-veto problem that defined the earlier occupation. Hezbollah can cite Israeli presence to justify retaining arms, while Israel can cite those arms to justify staying. My assessment is that the framework’s viability depends less on technical disarmament benchmarks than on whether withdrawal and disarmament can be made mutually verifiable within a defined timetable.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here