By 19 February, the second deadline for a ceasefire agreement that came into effect in November to end the 14-month war between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli forces had completed a partial withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
However, Israel said it would maintain a military presence on five strategic hills within Lebanese territory, breaching the agreement to withdraw and signalling a shift in Israel’s military approach that heightens tensions along the border.
The move sparked political and public outrage in Lebanon, with President Joseph Aoun calling on international mediators involved in the ceasefire negotiations to pressure Israel into withdrawing, accusing it of violating the agreement.
A reported proposal by Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Joe Rajji for UNIFIL forces to take over the five points that Israel is occupying was also rejected. Despite the diplomatic push, Israel has yet to indicate any plans to vacate the areas.
Last week, in a potential sign of what’s to come, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said troops would be “staying indefinitely” in what he called a “buffer zone”.
Strategic importance
According to military analysts, Israel’s delay in withdrawing from these specific locations stems from the strategic value of the occupied hills.
“These elevated positions provide clear visibility over surrounding areas in both Lebanon and [Israel], making them key vantage points for monitoring and controlling potential military movements,” retired Brigadier General Saeed Qazah told The New Arab.
The occupied hills include el-Hamames, which overlooks multiple Israeli towns such as Metula and sits just a kilometre from the Blue Line, the demarcation line between Lebanon and Israel behind which the warring parties should withdraw.
Further east, al-Awaida Hill, located between the Lebanese towns of Adaisseh and Kfar Kila, provides an unobstructed view of northern Israeli towns and the eastern sector of Lebanon. Al-Aziyah Hill, about two kilometres from the Lebanese-Israeli border, offers oversight of the Litani River, a critical geographical feature.
In the western regions of the south, Israeli forces have maintained a presence on Al-Labouneh Hill, just 300 meters from the border, where they can closely monitor both Lebanese and Israeli territory. Meanwhile, in the central sector, the occupation of Jabal Bilat allows Israeli forces to oversee both western and central Lebanon, making it a key tactical position.
But despite these positions holding military value, Qazah argues that Israel’s advanced aerial capabilities – drones, satellite imaging, and reconnaissance technology – diminish the necessity of physically controlling these areas, and make their presence atop these hills redundant, and militarily, unjustified.
“Given these capabilities, Israel’s justification for maintaining a presence on the hills is weak and unjustified, suggesting the move is driven more by political considerations than security concerns,” he noted.
In remarks made by the Israeli military spokesperson Nadav Shoshani, the army’s presence at the five hilltop locations is a “temporary measure” that was approved by the US-led body monitoring the ceasefire.
|
|
Psychological warfare and diplomatic bargaining
Researcher Abbas Jaafar al-Husseini believes Israel’s continued presence in these positions is aimed at reinforcing its security narrative and pressuring Hezbollah, serving a psychological and political purpose more than a security one.
Hezbollah, the political and military group that holds overpowering authority over Lebanon’s south, has faced tremendous losses during the 15 months of fighting with Israel.
Firing at Israel’s northern town to pressure Tel Aviv to stop its war on Gaza as thousands of Israelis were driven out of their homes, the Israeli military mounted extensive attacks across all of Lebanon, assassinating the group’s top leadership as well as demolishing entire towns.
“The location’s vantage points allow for direct visual and artillery control over significant parts of southern Lebanon, sending a message to Israeli settlers that their security is being reinforced,” explained al-Husseini.
The occupation of these hilltops also serves as a bargaining chip in negotiations over border demarcation and the broader implementation of the 1949 armistice agreement between Lebanon and Israel, Husseini adds.
“Israel could use its hold on these hills as leverage in future talks, making their withdrawal contingent on concessions from Lebanon,” he explained.
Moreover, Husseini argues that the hills provide Israel with a strategic advantage in Syria. With control over military movements near Mount Hermon, Israel could use these positions to support its broader operations in Syria, particularly if it seeks to expand its military footprint in the country’s south.
Since the collapse of Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in December, Israeli forces have waded into Syria’s southern regions, overtaking a buffer zone adjacent to the Golan Heights, which Israel has been occupying since 1967. Israeli officials have reiterated that their troops’ presence on Syrian soil is permanent, despite global condemnation of this aggression.
Testing Lebanon’s response
Historically, some of these hills were under Israeli occupation before the 2000 withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
Political analyst Nadheer Reza argues that, despite their geographic advantage, the occupied positions are not as critical as they once were given Israel’s dominance in aerial warfare, echoing the views of Brigadier Qazah.
According to Reza, the real objective of maintaining control over these areas is psychological and political.
“Israel’s leadership is using this occupation to assure [Israelis] that it has expanded security measures inside Lebanon while simultaneously advancing its military outposts closer to the Blue Line. This not only solidifies its border presence but also strengthens its position in any future negotiations,” confirms Reza.
The ongoing occupation, Reza suggests, also serves as a pressure tactic against Lebanon, a strategy which he says “follows Israel’s broader approach to territorial disputes, where military control is leveraged to extract diplomatic or security guarantees”.
He also notes that the occupation is a test for Lebanon’s newly formed government and recently elected president.
“If diplomatic efforts fail to force an Israeli retreat, local frustration may grow, reviving calls for armed resistance. This, in turn, could place Lebanon’s political leadership in a difficult position, forcing it to either endorse resistance efforts or risk public backlash for perceived inaction,” he explains.
“This is a challenge that imposes a multi-faceted threat on Lebanon, that goes beyond military [dimensions] but is also political and social. It’s one that will raise future tensions if unresolved immediately, and therefore the Lebanese government and international community must take action now.”
This piece was published in collaboration with Egab
