The cease-fire agreement between Israel and Lebanon last week has put Jerusalem in a no-win situation: When Israel has struck Hezbollah targets violating the cease-fire, it was accused of breaking the agreement – even though Israeli enforcement is stipulated in the deal. But if Israel does not strike back, Hezbollah will have carte blanche in southern Lebanon to threaten Israel.

So far, Israel has gone with the first option, trying to maintain its deterrence after significantly degrading the Iran-backed terror group in recent months. 

Despite the cease-fire — which has stopped the ongoing rocket and missile fire from Lebanon that began on Oct. 8, 2023 — there have been ongoing cross-border exchanges. In recent days, the IAF has launched airstrikes on southern Lebanon targeting Hezbollah military infrastructure and vehicles, Hezbollah shot two mortars into Israel and the IDF battled Hezbollah terrorists in a tunnel close to the border with Israel.

The terms of the agreement stipulate that Hezbollah is banned from operating in the roughly 17-mile area between the Israel-Lebanon border and the Litani River, with the Lebanese Armed Forces and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon keeping the terror group out. The LAF has yet to fully deploy in the area, and it is looking for new recruits to help in its mission. A U.S.-led monitoring mechanism mentioned in the deal and meant to support the agreement’s enforcement has not yet been implemented.

In a side deal between the U.S. and Israel, Washington supported Israeli enforcement of the cease-fire deal, such that Israel can act against any violations in southern Lebanon at any time, as well as any immediate, time-critical threats throughout Lebanon. Response to threats north of the Litani that are not time-critical, according to the terms of the deal, would be coordinated with the U.S. and LAF.

The side deal also says that Israel may continue intelligence-gathering flights over Lebanon, as long as they do not break the sound barrier.

Yet, Special Envoy Amos Hochstein has reportedly rapped Israel for drone flights over Beirut, saying that Israel must uphold its end of the deal. 

France has also accused Israel of dozens of cease-fire violations, arguing that Israel has to first report Hezbollah’s violations to the monitoring body.

Israeli leaders, however, made clear that they plan to continue strikes against Hezbollah violations.

During a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We are enforcing this cease-fire with an iron fist. We are acting against every violation, minor or severe … we are committed to the cease-fire, but we also will not tolerate violations by the other side.”

“I want to say in the clearest way: We will not go back to October 6. No dribs, no drabs [of rocket fire], nothing. The north will be quiet, the north will flourish and the north will be safe.”

Defense Minister Israel Katz said that the IDF will “act with full force to enforce all of the understandings in the cease-fire agreement, with maximum reactions and zero tolerance … We won’t let Hezbollah go back to its old ways.” 

Katz warned that Lebanon must give its armed forces the authority to keep Hezbollah out of the country’s south, otherwise “the whole agreement will collapse,” and if the war starts again, Israel will no longer differentiate between Hezbollah and the Lebanese government.

Dan Orbach, a military historian at Hebrew University, called the state of affairs “armed negotiations.”

“You don’t have total war, where each side wants to destroy the other … but we don’t agree on the details, so they negotiate through armed force, not only with words,” Orbach said. “This is what’s happening between Israel and Hezbollah. Both understand the war has to end and don’t want it to continue at full scale, yet they have different visions of what the new situation should look like … It’s an attempt by Israel and Hezbollah to shape the regime of deterrence between them.”

Orbach said that Hezbollah Telegram channels and media outlets say that the Lebanese terrorist group plans to proceed as it did at the end of the 2006 Second Lebanon War – meaning to violate the cease-fire and rearm itself close to the border with Israel.

He cited posts and articles saying that “the LAF and international forces will try to remove Hezbollah infrastructure, but the local people won’t allow it.” An editorial in the Hezbollah-run newspaper Al Akhbar said that the military “cannot trespass on private property without judicial decree,” and Hezbollah hides arms in private homes.

“Israel is not willing to allow it any longer,” Orbach said. “The international supervision mechanism is slow and cumbersome as they always are…What Israel is trying to do is just immediately bomb every violation of the agreement with a very wide interpretation [of what is a violation].”

According to Orbach, Israel’s actions are meant to incentivize the LAF, UNIFIL, U.S. and France to better enforce the cease-fire, but demonstrating: “If you don’t do it, then we will.”

Sarit Zehavi, founder and president of the Alma Center, which specializes in researching security challenges along Israel’s northern border, said that the cease-fire is developing as expected.

“That’s why they gave it 60 days” – until the IDF has to fully withdraw from Lebanon – “to see if the sides are serious,” she said.

The situation has left residents of the north, Zehavi among them, in limbo: “The [government] hasn’t canceled school again, but it will be hard to bring people back here to return to normal life.”

Zehavi added, “if Israel enforces the cease-fire, there won’t be quiet, but clearly no one else is enforcing it … We shouldn’t delude ourselves.” 

Zehavi criticized pressure from Washington and Paris to halt fire. “We’re used to it. What’s new?” she asked rhetorically. “It’s been happening for 14 months and making it harder for us to defend ourselves.” 

“Israel needs to make sure it does not wait to enforce until there is a monster, as we saw in the past,” she added. “I don’t think that’s a risk Israel is willing to take.” 

The path to real, long-term security in the north goes far beyond what is included in the cease-fire, according to Zehavi, who said that Lebanon will have to find a way to disengage with Hezbollah, because otherwise the LAF will not be able to keep the terrorist group out of the country’s south, and that Iranian involvement in Lebanon must be put to an end.

But David Daoud, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said there is no chance of disconnecting Lebanon from Hezbollah in this framework.

The cease-fire “stems from a desire to have quiet for quiet’s sake irrespective of what happens in the future,” Daoud said, and it shows “a fundamental misunderstanding of Lebanon, its politics and Hezbollah’s role in Lebanese society.”

“Hezbollah is Lebanese … they’re Lebanese citizens. It complicates dealing with them. It’s not like the P.L.O. in the 1980s, where you could kick them out. How do you kick out hundreds of thousands of citizens?” Daoud asked, noting that Hezbollah was also the most popular party in the last election.

“You can’t just say ‘we’re going to ignore [Hezbollah].’ Any decision you want to make has to take them into consideration, otherwise you risk civil war,” he added.

Daoud also said that Shi’ite Lebanese view Hezbollah as protecting them from Israel, and also as giving them dignity and equality or even supremacy over other religious groups in Lebanon. As such, they would be unlikely to cooperate with moves to remove Hezbollah.

He also questioned the “durability” of a letter from the U.S. saying that Israel’s right to self-defense is guaranteed.

Daoud argued that since the letter says Israel’s right to self-defense is guaranteed, but goes on to say Israel has the right to respond to imminent threats, Israel is constrained to only respond in certain scenarios, with non-imminent threats needing to be evaluated by the international oversight committee.

“We don’t know how it will operate yet. Does the U.S. have a veto [over Israeli action]? What will be the role of the French, who historically covered for the Lebanese?” he asked.

Hochstein’s reported warning against Israeli intelligence flights over Beirut despite the explicit agreement to do so, is an example of the weakness of the letter of assurance, Daoud said.

Daoud also argued that the deal is not temporary and that 60 days is only the timetable for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, “which will have an impact on Israel’s ability to resume hostilities.” 

“People need to keep their eyes on the ball and be very clear-eyed about what is possible from Lebanon,” he said.