In what has been a cause for concern, Israeli daily Israel Hayom reported that Israel is likely not to pull out its forces from southern Lebanon within the mandatory 60-day timeframe of a US and France-brokered ceasefire deal, which would be another truce violation of the tenuous truce signed on November 27 between Lebanon and Israel.
The ceasefire, hailed as a major step toward the cessation of hostilities in the zone, bound Israel to start withdrawing its troops from southern Lebanon, with complete withdrawal expected within 60 days. However, current developments indicate that the Israeli stay may be prolonged, citing security concerns and logistical complications. The revelation came on the back of hundreds of reported violations of the truce by Israel, further muddling efforts to stabilize the situation.
The truce deal, brokered with substantial US and French involvement, was to diffuse tensions along the Israel-Lebanon borders after months of clashes. Among its key provisions was a strict timeline for Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, where its forces had been engaged in military operations.
The 60-day withdrawal period was seen as a test of both sides’ commitment to the agreement. For Lebanon, the withdrawal was viewed as a step toward restoring sovereignty over its territory. For Israel, it provided an opportunity to show commitment to international conventions and to manage its security needs alongside its northern border.
Nevertheless, after only a few weeks until the withdrawal is supposed to take place, it is reported that the withdrawal of Israel may not go to the schedule intended, generating significant concerns about the outcome of the ceasefire.
What Does a Delayed Withdrawal Mean?
If Israel does not pull out by the agreed date, not only it will violate the ceasefire protocols, it will exacerbate the situation in an unstable area. Lebanon, having long objected to Israel’s incursions, intrusion and occupation into its territory, could interpret the postponement as a direct affront to its territorial integrity.
In particular such an action will run the risk of eroding the reputation of international mediators such as the US and France, both of whom contributed a pivotal role in achieving the ceasefire. In both countries, sizable political capital has been directed toward promoting peace across the region, and a lack of ability to validate the pact will likely hurt their capacity as neutrality mediators.
For Israel, continuing to live in southern Lebanon will only compromise its diplomatic standing further. The Government has been subject to criticism for its military operations in Lebanon, and extended operations in the region would almost certainly draw even greater scrutiny from the international community.
However, Israeli officials have reportedly argued that security risks in southern Lebanon, particularly from armed groups operating near the border, necessitate a cautious approach to withdrawal. This rationale has been greeted with disbelief, since it is often a cover from a strategic presence in the region.
This is not the first attempt to ascribe to Israel or its supporters a breach of a ceasefire agreement. As of the implementation of the truce since November 27, Lebanon has alleged thousands of breaches by Israel, ranging from airspace intrusions to minor border skirmishes to intelligence activities.
These have led to anger in Lebanon and raised questions about Israel’s adherence to the treaty. Should Israel fail to meet the 60-day withdrawal deadline, it would add to a growing list of grievances and further strain relations between the two nations.
