Israel Can’t Afford to Fall for Empty Declarations Again (And Neither Can Lebanon)

A dangerous gap is widening between recent diplomatic declarations regarding Lebanon and the stark reality on the ground. The Lebanese government’s decision to disarm Hezbollah by the end of 2025, a move encouraged by American pressure, was met with a welcoming statement from Israel’s Prime Minister on Monday, who offered reciprocal steps. This has been hailed as a golden opportunity for Lebanese sovereignty. But it could be a trap that would severely degrade both Lebanese sovereignty and the security of northern Israel. 

After meetings with special U.S. Envoy Tom Barrack and Deputy Special Envoy Morgan Ortagus on Sunday, Prime Minister Netanyahu said in a statement, “Israel acknowledges the significant step taken by the Lebanese Government, under the leadership of President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam. The recent decision by the Council of Ministers to work towards the disarmament of Hezbollah by the end of 2025 was a momentous decision. It marks a crucial opportunity for Lebanon to reclaim its sovereignty and restore the authority of its state institutions, military, and governance — free from the influence of non-state actors.” The statement added, “If the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) take the necessary steps to implement the disarmament of Hezbollah, Israel will engage in reciprocal measures, including a phased reduction of IDF presence in coordination with the US-led security mechanism. Now is the time for both Israel and Lebanon to move forward in a spirit of cooperation, focusing on the shared objective of disarming Hezbollah and promoting the stability and prosperity of both nations.”

However, these positive statements are contradicted by the actual situation in Lebanon and run parallel to disturbing calls for Israel to reduce its military strikes targeting illegal Hezbollah activities aimed at rebuilding its military power. This is a critical error. The operational meaning of reducing strikes is that terrorist operatives and weapons manufacturing sites would not be targeted, and Hezbollah would clearly exploit this lull to reconstitute its military capabilities.

Instead of deploying near the border, Hezbollah is now rebuilding its strength north of the Litani River, focusing on its Badr Unit. In this area, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) do not operate against it at all. The LAF has shown no resolve to confront Hezbollah; it does not enter homes housing terrorist infrastructure, and its internal ranks remain compromised by thousands of Hezbollah collaborators, most of them Shi’ite personnel.

Even though security at Beirut’s Rafic Hariri International Airport has improved, there are more potential smuggling routes such as Tripoli’s sea port.

To cease Israeli military pressure now would be a historic mistake, harmful not only to Israel but to Lebanon itself. The Lebanese government, hesitant and fearing a civil war, needs the leverage of continued external pressure to be compelled to act. Without a policy of maximum pressure, this opportunity to continue to weaken an already weakened Hezbollah will be squandered.

We must not be lulled into a false sense of security by promises that are not backed by action. Hezbollah has been weakened in this war, but it has lost neither its radical ideology nor its core motivation. To fall for declarations while allowing the organization the space to rebuild is to repeat the strategic errors that followed the 2006 Second Lebanon War, errors that allowed Hezbollah to turn into a monstrous terror army. Falling for empty declarations would also be a repeat of the same misconceptions that enabled the October 7 catastrophe.