Israel’s delicate balancing act on Lebanon border

Israel’s delicate balancing act on Lebanon border

Ron Ben-Yishai

Analysis: Talks with Beirut may lead to IDF withdrawal and border adjustments, raising security concerns; with Iranian proxy's position weakened and U.S. backing strong, Jerusalem weighs diplomacy, security guarantees and regional stability

Northern Israel’s municipal leaders are deeply skeptical about the latest border negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, and it’s easy to see why. The discussions, held under the supervision of the United Nations in the Lebanese town of Naqoura, resulted in vague agreements that could be interpreted in ways that raise serious security concerns.

One of the major fears is that Israel may soon withdraw its military presence from southern Lebanon entirely, returning to the "Blue Line" — the UN-recognized border between the two countries. Even more alarming is the possibility that the border itself might be adjusted in several places, effectively moving it southward and reducing Israel’s territorial buffer.

For local officials in northern Israeli towns and villages — who have long lived under the threat of Hezbollah attacks — these developments are unsettling. Their concerns are rooted in past experience: after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah quickly took over the area, and a similar scenario could play out again if Israel pulls back without firm security guarantees.

Security concerns vs. diplomatic reality

Despite the protests from local officials, a senior government source in Jerusalem stated that Israel does not intend to maintain a permanent military presence in Lebanon. Instead, the country aims to establish stable security arrangements along the border without needing IDF troops stationed there.

However, the skepticism voiced by Metula Local Council head David Azoulay and Mateh Asher Regional Council head Moshe Davidovich stems from more than just political disagreements. Their concerns are based on hard realities. Following the 2006 Second Lebanon War, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was supposed to ensure Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the border region. In practice, Hezbollah openly defied the agreement, setting up military positions just meters from the frontier, significantly increasing the threat to Israeli communities

While Israel, too, did not fully comply — continuing its aerial surveillance flights over Lebanon despite the agreemen t— Hezbollah’s growing presence near the border has been the much greater cause for alarm.

That said, today’s reality in Lebanon is vastly different from 2006, necessitating a reassessment of the coordination committee’s conclusions based on new geopolitical conditions.

A shifting landscape

In 2006, Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah emerged from the war with a sense of victory. They were hailed as heroes across the Arab world, and inside Lebanon, no one dared challenge their power. Today, the situation is reversed. Hezbollah is significantly weaker, and for the first time, there are real conditions for political and military change in Lebanon.

The shift in U.S. policy is another major factor. In 2006, Washington pressured Israel to end the war in exchange for a weak UN resolution that did little to restrain Hezbollah. Today, the U.S. position — first under the Trump administration and continuing under Biden — has been far more supportive of Israel, both diplomatically and militarily.

More...