New offensive undermines the fragile agreement
Donald Trump, President of the United States, recently announced an extension of the three-week ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon following the continuous attacks carried out mainly against Lebanese territory over the past few weeks.
This agreement came after the second meeting on Thursday in Washington between the warring parties, mediated by the United States. In an initial meeting, a ten-day truce was agreed, which was due to end on 26 April.
Clashes and threats had continued, but the latest three-week extension of the ceasefire announced by Donald Trump had raised hopes of reaching a final agreement. However, in the last few hours, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) have launched an attack on a Lebanese rocket launcher, after the Israeli Army reported attacks by the latter on its own territory, and on another Lebanese rocket launcher that was loaded and ready to fire.
According to the Israeli Army on the social media platform Telegram, the Israeli area targeted was the border village of Shtula, in the north of the country, although the IDF has not specified whether the alleged attack from Lebanon took place before or after the ceasefire announced by the White House.
Donald Trump himself hosted the latest talks between the warring parties at the White House, to facilitate a more solid agreement, as the first meeting had simply taken place at the State Department. The meeting at the White House was attended by the Foreign ministers and ambassadors of both countries, as well as the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee.
However, this understanding brokered by Washington is once again hanging by a thread following the border attacks described above.
New offensive undermines the fragile agreement
The latest attack, in this instance on Lebanese territory – although reportedly in response to a previous Lebanese attack, according to Israeli military sources who did not specify whether the earlier Lebanese attack occurred before or after the most recent ceasefire was declared – has effectively scuppered the latest announced three-week extension of the truce from the outset.
The situation remains complicated, with threats and skirmishes along the border, which are not helping to ease tensions.
Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, has already indicated that the truce “is not 100%”, which highlights the fragility of the situation.
This war is being waged between the Israeli Army and the Iranian-backed Shia militia Hezbollah, which launched attacks on Israeli territory following the joint US-Israeli offensive against the Islamic Republic on 28 February, which sparked the current conflict with Iran.
Israel is demanding that the Lebanese government completely disarm Hezbollah, considering it a genuine threat to its national security. This condition is even included as one of the key points in the talks held between the United States and Iran, mediated by Pakistan, in order to reach an agreement that would bring an end to the armed conflict.
⭕️In response to the rockets launched by Hezbollah toward Shtula yesterday, the IDF struck Hezbollah military structures in the areas of Kherbet Selem and Touline in southern Lebanon.
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) April 24, 2026
Principle of self-defence
Israel stated that it would respect the ceasefire with Lebanon, initially declared on 16 April and now extended for three weeks, without carrying out any offensive military action provided it is not under threat; in other words, by applying the ‘principle of self-defence’, as announced by the US State Department itself following the announcement of the truce.
As the US State Department itself announced in relation to the agreed ceasefire, Israel could exercise this right “at any time, against planned, imminent or ongoing attacks”. “This will not be impeded by the cessation of hostilities”, as stated in the official communication from the US State Department.
Image of an Israeli attack in Lebanon – REUTERS/MOHAMED AZAKIR
It was explained in this instance that Israel would not carry out any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, including civilian, military and other state targets, by land, sea or air.
This principle of self-defence can be understood as a “carte blanche” for Israel to launch any kind of attack against Lebanon simply by claiming that it feels threatened, even by alleged “ongoing” or “planned” attacks, without there being an actual attack on its territory. This sets a dangerous precedent that generates unrest and instability along the border and even across the region, despite the fact that a three-week ceasefire has been reached, brokered in person by none other than Donald Trump himself.