War unlikely to return to Lebanon and Gaza

 

• by Dr Sania Faisal El-Husseini

A return to war in southern Lebanon or Gaza now seems improbable, despite the fragile ceasefire in both regions. The United States, which brokered and enforced the truces, appears determined to give Israel the time and space to finish what it could not achieve on the battlefield. What Israel failed to secure through war, it now seeks to achieve in a low intensity warfare a one characterised a steady pressure on Beirut and Gaza, and marked by instability and tension. Washington’s approach appears to be rooted in a strategy of sustained pressure on Beirut and Gaza.

There is little doubt left about where the United States stands. Its support for Israel is absolute, but its strategies  evolved and shifted toward a new ones. Rather than supporting an escalation, Washington now seems to favour a subtler method that keeps lines of communication open while tightening pressure on Israel’s rivals, and permitting only limited and controlled clashes. Lebanon has become the testing ground for this new approach. The truce brokered late last year was violated by Israel within hours; Beirut, for its part, chose to keep silent.

Nevertheless, Washington has continued to exert pressure on the Lebanese government to comply with conditions that extend well beyond the scope of the ceasefire. These conditions intrude into Lebanon’s domestic sphere and carry implications for its internal stability and security. Rather than addressing Israel’s violations of the truce, the United States has largely justified them while cautioning Beirut that further Israeli actions could follow if it fails to meet Washington’s expanded expectations.

In Gaza, Hamas abided by the terms of the truce, promptly releasing living detainees once the agreement took effect. It also began efforts to recover the bodies of those killed beneath the ruins due to Israeli bombardment, even allowing external actors to assist in locating those  bodies. Israel, however, breached the ceasefire under tenuous pretexts, resuming airstrikes and maintaining strict control over the entry of essential humanitarian supplies, including food and medicine. The United States has threatened Hamas with destruction if it failed to return those Israeli bodies,while Israel continues to occupy the Gaza Strip, target civilians, and restrict the entry of essential goods, all in blatant violation of the ceasefire terms. Although recent remarks by President Donald Trump rejecting Israel’s formal annexation of the West Bank and insisting that he “would not allow it,” his administration has refrained from criticising Israel’s declared measures or its silent annexation on the ground. The US does not recognise the West Bank as occupied territory, nor does it condemn the violence of Israeli settlers, violence openly backed by the occupation government. Notably, the annexation plan has been part of Trump’s “Deal of the Century”  declared during his first term in office.

Meanwhile, Washington continues to exert political and financial pressure on the Palestinian Authority, while adopting increasingly confrontational positions toward countries that have recently recognised the State of Palestine. In Lebanon, a number of analysts have interpreted Israel’s recent military escalation as a potential prelude to a renewed war. However, other indicators point in the opposite direction. Israeli operations along the border have continued to be intermittent since the ceasefire began, but the fluctuating intensity of these actions does not necessarily signal that a full-scale war is imminent. On the ground, the picture is more restrained: Israel has reduced the number of reserve troops stationed on the northern front, cancelled earlier mobilisation orders, and initiated the return of Jewish settlers to northern settlements near the Lebanese border.

READ: Hezbollah accuses US of complicity in Israeli attack on southern Lebanon

Statements from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his cabinet officials, and Israeli military experts indicate that Israel now prefers to pressure the Lebanese government into disarming Hezbollah entirely, going beyond what was stipulated in the most recent ceasefire terms. The provisions of the ceasefire concerning Hezbollah’s armament are linked to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which mandates the group’s disarmament south of the Litani River, a commitment observed by the Lebanese government in coordination with Hezbollah. However, the US envoy to the Middle East has now set a new, explicit condition: that the Lebanese government must ensure Hezbollah’s complete disarmament across all Lebanese territory. The demand mirrors Israel’s public position, and the American message is clear: failure to comply could invite further Israeli attacks and new economic sanctions on a country still struggling with the aftermath of war. Meanwhile, Israel has maintained pressure on Lebanon through continued, tacit violations of the ceasefire and by conducting daily air raids. It also remains present in five new positions it captured inside Lebanese territory following the war, altering their geography in ways that suggest a longer-term presence, despite the truce’s requirement for full withdrawal. In addition, Israel continues to hold the territories it occupied before the war.

Israel has also been targeting agricultural lands and civilian movements in southern Lebanon, deliberately impeding their return to normal life, another layer of pressure on the Lebanese government. It therefore appears that Israel, in concert with its American ally, has chosen to consolidate the gains it made on the battlefield in the recent conflict rather than pursue a wider war that would require a ground invasion to eliminate Hezbollah. Instead, Washington and Jerusalem seem to be relying on a strategy of sustained pressure on Beirut to achieve what they failed to accomplish militarily: the dismantling of Hezbollah’s arsenal. Ultimately, the question of disarmament and Lebanon’s domestic security arrangements should be resolved by the Lebanese people, their government and political actors in accordance with national interests; no external actor is entitled to exploit Lebanon’s post-conflict economic and humanitarian vulnerabilities to impose conditions. Conversely, the annexation or occupation of foreign territory constitutes an international concern, warranting the attention and potential intervention of the international community and its institutions to re-establish security and stability.

The Palestinian situation appears far more complex than Lebanon’s. The ceasefire brokered by the United States guaranteed Israel the return of all living Israeli  detainees and the search for those still buried under the rubble. Nevertheless, Israel maintains effective control over Gaza’s security structures while continuing airstrikes and lethal operations that have resulted in significant civilian casualties. Thousands of Palestinians remain imprisoned in Israeli prisons, and Israel continues to withhold the bodies of hundreds of Palestinians in its custody. The situation in Gaza remains dire. The cessation of active hostilities has not brought an end to the humanitarian crisis confronting its population. Indeed, the persistence of the present conditions may enable the Israeli army’s to advance their strategic objectives over the population without the political and military costs of renewed large-scale warfare. Conversely, Israel and its allies have sought to achieve the disarmament of Hamas and other Palestinian factions in Gaza, yet such an outcome remains elusive.

Efforts to establish a Palestinian administrative committee to govern the enclave have not materialised, nor have the contours of potential Arab participation been clearly delineated. These unresolved issues lie at the heart of Gaza’s long term stability, remain undefined and politically opaque. At the same time, Palestinians in the West Bank are called upon to undertake “reforms,” while those in Gaza equipped with only rudimentary means of defence  face mounting pressure to relinquish their arms under Israeli occupition. The United States continues to exert political pressure on the Palestinians, even as Israel operates largely unrestrained, impeding Palestinian life across the board.

The United States appears to be employing a similar strategy of calibrated pressure in both Lebanon and Palestine, seeking to enable Israel to attain objectives that eluded it through war. Through a mix of ceasefire arrangements, economic constraints, and controlled Israeli escalation, Washington and Tel Aviv rely on the passage of time as a strategic instrument to consolidate gains in two war weary states.

OPINION: The dilemma of ending the war has reached its most critical juncture

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20251031-war-unlikely-to-return-to-lebanon-and-gaza/