Debate is underway within Israel’s decision-making circles over how to deal with the Lebanese front, as part of a broader review of security policies that have endured for decades. According to military assessments and analyses, this debate reflects declining confidence in the effectiveness of withdrawals and agreements as a means of containing threats, and a growing inclination toward more decisive options on the ground.
In an interview with Alhurra, military analyst and Israeli army reserve brigadier general Iran Ortal said that what he calls the “withdrawal doctrine,” which Israel has followed since 2000, has failed to achieve its objectives. He added that Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip was intended to reduce the intensity of the conflict, but in his view, it instead allowed those areas to turn into platforms for launching attacks against Israel. He also argued that the October 7, 2023, attack provided further evidence of the failure of this approach.
The Lebanese front has witnessed significant military escalation in recent weeks. Reports indicate that Israeli forces have intensified their operations in southern Lebanon, with recorded ground incursions and the establishment of military positions inside Lebanese territory, in addition to the continuation of daily airstrikes since the beginning of March.
According to data cited by Reuters, Israeli forces have advanced several kilometers into the south and set up field checkpoints, while issuing evacuation orders for villages and towns covering roughly 14 percent of Lebanon’s territory.
Ortal believes this shift in strategic assessment is prompting a reconsideration of the idea of relying solely on buffer zones or political arrangements. From his perspective, a “return to direct military control” has become a potential option to ensure the security of border areas.
Regarding the distribution of military efforts, he said Israel views Iran as the broader strategic threat, while the Lebanese front represents a battlefield of attrition for ground forces because of geographic proximity and the nature of the confrontation with Hezbollah. He added that the air force and intelligence services are more focused on Iran, while ground forces are responsible for managing operations in the north. He also referred to what he described as a “wider margin of maneuver” for Israel in Lebanon compared with previous periods, pointing to the U.S. position.
According to Ortal, discussions revolve around three main approaches to dealing with the situation in Lebanon.
The first option involves intensifying strikes in order to push the Lebanese state to take steps to disarm Hezbollah. However, he expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of this path, citing past difficulties Lebanese authorities faced in implementing similar commitments.
The second option would involve expanding the scope of field control in the south, including the creation of a broader buffer zone. Yet Ortal believes this option may not prevent the group from reorganizing its ranks later.
The third option, which he described as the most decisive, involves carrying out a large-scale ground operation targeting Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in southern Lebanon in order to weaken its capabilities and prevent it from rebuilding its strength. He explained that this proposal does not necessarily mean a permanent presence inside Lebanese territory but rather would depend on the outcomes such an operation might achieve.
Ortal noted that any potential ground operation would rely on coordination among different units, including infantry and armored forces, alongside support from the air force and the use of reconnaissance tools, including drones, to identify targets.
In this context, he said that strikes on sites located within populated areas could occur as a result of Hezbollah’s alleged use of such areas for military activities. He added that the Israeli military, in his assessment, would seek to avoid targeting Lebanese infrastructure as much as possible while focusing on what it describes as “military targets.”
On Tuesday, the United Nations said civilians are paying a heavy price as the war in Lebanon continues to expand, leading to displacement and casualties.
Imran Riza, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator in Lebanon, said: “The displacement is increasing at an unbelievable pace. Hundreds of thousands of people have now left their homes. Many are leaving with very little — just the clothes they are wearing.”
Lebanon became a party to the Middle East war on March 2 when Hezbollah fired on Israel, saying it was retaliating for the killing of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel responded with an attack that killed more than 800 people in Lebanon and forced more than 800,000 people to flee their homes, according to Reuters.
The United Nations said Lebanese government data shows that nearly one-fifth of the population is currently registered as displaced, with expectations that the number will increase.
Concluding his remarks, Ortal linked any future Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon to the disappearance of what he considers a real threat, rather than merely reaching agreements. He cited the experience in Gaza, where he says Israel refrained from withdrawing from some areas due to concerns that armed factions could rearm.
He suggested that an Israeli military presence may continue in southern parts of Lebanon, within a zone that could extend several kilometers, until conditions on the ground change fundamentally, in his words.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
