Despite the formal agreement reached in Washington to extend the Lebanon ceasefire to 17 May, hostilities have persisted almost uninterrupted. Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks resumed almost immediately, exposing a structural flaw in the ceasefire’s design. The agreement allows Israel to take ‘all necessary measures in self-defence’ against imminent or ongoing threats—a clause broad enough to continue military operations as Israel argues that its strikes do not violate the truce but rather enforce it.

This interpretation is not without precedent. During a similar arrangement in 2024, Israel reportedly carried out more than 15,000 strikes under comparable legal justification. The current ceasefire appears to replicate that framework, effectively permitting low-intensity conflict under the cover of formal de-escalation. Since 16 April alone, Israel claims to have destroyed hundreds of Hezbollah targets and killed dozens of operatives, while Hezbollah continues to engage Israeli forces, particularly within contested zones in southern Lebanon.

The Never-Enforced UN Resolution

Central to the current escalation is Israel’s establishment of a so-called ‘yellow line’ south of the Litani River. This de facto buffer zone—held by multiple Israeli army divisions and supported by naval forces—includes approximately 60 villages, predominantly populated by Shi’a communities aligned with Hezbollah. Israeli operations in this area focus on dismantling militant infrastructure, including tunnels, rocket launchers, and command centres. However, the destruction of civilian homes within this zone raises humanitarian and legal concerns, further complicating the already fragile ceasefire.

‘The destruction of civilian homes within this zone raises humanitarian and legal concerns, further complicating the already fragile ceasefire’

The legal and diplomatic framework governing southern Lebanon is not new. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted after the 2006 Lebanon War, explicitly mandates that no armed groups other than the Lebanese Armed Forces and UNIFIL operate south of the Litani River. In practice, however, the Lebanese state has been unable—or unwilling—to enforce this provision. Hezbollah has entrenched itself militarily and politically in the region over the past two decades, creating what many analysts describe as a ‘state within a state’.

Rhetoric Is Flaring Up Too

Rhetoric from all sides reflects this tension. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has condemned ongoing talks with Israel and rejected measures perceived as ‘criminalizing the resistance’. At the same time, Israeli officials have issued stark warnings that continued Lebanese alignment with Hezbollah could lead to broader devastation. Israeli Minister Katz responded by saying Qassem was ‘playing with fire…[that] will burn Hezbollah and all of Lebanon’.

‘If the Lebanese government continues to take cover under the wing of the Hezbollah terrorist organisation, fire will break out and engulf the cedars of Lebanon,’ he told United Nations envoy to Lebanon Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun also joined the rhetorical fray, saying that the direct talks with Israel were aimed at ending the conflict with Hezbollah while accusing those who drew Lebanon into war of ‘treason’, in an implicit rebuke of Hezbollah.

Walking a Fine Line

Israel insists that any lasting ceasefire or withdrawal from southern Lebanon must be contingent on Hezbollah’s disarmament. Lebanese leadership, including President Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, rejects this sequencing. Their position is that Israeli forces must first withdraw completely from Lebanese territory, including the buffer zone, before any meaningful internal reforms can take place.

The gap between these positions is not merely diplomatic. For Israel, Hezbollah represents a persistent and proximate security threat. For Lebanon, forcibly disarming Hezbollah risks internal destabilization on a potentially catastrophic scale. Hezbollah is not only a militia but also a major political actor with deep social roots. Any serious attempt to dismantle it could trigger internal conflict, raising the spectre of renewed civil war.

However, without a credible pathway to either Hezbollah’s disarmament or Israel’s full withdrawal, the current arrangement is likely to persist in its present form. A ceasefire in name, punctuated by continuous violence.

Related articles: