As the U.S.-Israeli ceasefire with Iran grows increasingly tenuous under Trump’s threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, Israel’s attacks on Lebanon have received little attention. In response to U.S.-Israeli strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 28th, Hezbollah joined the regional struggle in solidarity with Iran by launching attacks on Israel. Hezbollah is largely baseda in Lebanon’s Shiite-majority areas, most of which are in southern Lebanon and share a border with Israel.
Intensified Israeli strikes and mass evacuation orders have triggered one of the fastest and largest population displacements in Lebanon’s history, as Israeli officials “[urge] applying the ‘Gaza model’ to southern Lebanon, meaning the destruction of villages, displacing populations, and then redefining control on the ground.”Among human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, Israeli airstrikes have raised concerns about war crimes, largely regarding the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, health facilities, and essential services. The systematic destruction of critical infrastructure, notably several bridges connecting southern Lebanon to the rest of the country, has cut off key roads and supply routes, leaving people isolated and out ?of reach of humanitarian assistance. As displacement numbers surpass one million—roughly 20% of Lebanon’s population—it is important to take a step back and look at Israeli policy in the region.
Over the years, Israel has consistently shown a blatant disregard for the national sovereignty of its neighbors. One example of this is the Israeli occupation and annexation of the Golan Heights region in Syria, which the U.N. formally recognizes as occupied Syrian territory. In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the land, and, in 1981, formally declared its annexation of the territory, a move that is only recognized by the United States and widely condemned by the international community. Lebanon bears a different story.
Lebanon’s relationship with Israel is largely based on their differing views of Palestinian sovereignty, border security, and Lebanese sovereignty. One Israeli perspective could be characterized as their contention that Palestinian independence groups sheltered in Lebanon operate as a “fifth column” and therefore are an existential threat to Israel that necessitates frequent military intervention, as exemplified by Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982 to 2000. However, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 prompted the creation of Hezbollah, a Shiite political party and militant group backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard that is widely considered the most heavily armed non-state actor that functions as a major proxy for Iran in the Middle East.
Hezbollah has played a significant role in the longstanding conflict over Palestinian sovereignty and has been a major opposition force to Israel’s war in Gaza. After Hamas’s October 7th attack, Hezbollah has played a support role for armed groups in Gaza by engaging the Israeli military on its northern border to reduce pressure on the occupied Palestinian territories. Because of their involvement, Israel has targeted and killed much of Hezbollah’s top leadership, notably Hezbollah’s longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah in late 2024. This led to a fragile ceasefire that was considered standing until February 2026, when Hezbollah launched strikes at Israel in response to the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei.
However, while Hezbollah abided by the 2024 ceasefire agreement, Israel did not. Instead, U.N. experts reported that, “despite the ceasefire, Israel [continued] to strike Lebanese territory almost daily.” This report continues to express how “Israel’s conduct [was] seriously undermining efforts by Lebanese authorities to implement effective disarmament as required by the cessation of hostilities agreement.” One of the biggest takeaways from the last few years is the glaring double standard that exists in conflicts relating to Israel. Israel violated the 2024 ceasefire daily, as documented by U.N. experts, yet faced little international consequence. When Hezbollah eventually responded, over a year later, it was met with a full military campaign and widespread condemnation. This asymmetry obscures efforts to end hostilities and reach long-lasting peace agreements in the region by signaling that provocation carries no cost for some parties and every cost for others.
Israeli strikes intended to dismantle Hezbollah have had the opposite effect. Hezbollah does not have the full support of Lebanon’s government nor the Lebanese population. Instead, the party is a source of deep contention in a state already divided among Shia, Sunni, Christian, and Druze groups. Yet Israeli interventions have only exacerbated the state’s collapse and eroded the Lebanese military, allowing Hezbollah to maintain its position. A Lebanon too destabilized to govern cannot disarm a militant group embedded within it, and continued Israeli assault makes that task impossible.
Overshadowed by the broader U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, Lebanon’s experience has once again demonstrated that Israel’s right to defend itself does not justify the displacement of millions in pursuit of the dismantlement of Hezbollah. The extensive bombing of civilian areas cannot credibly be characterized as border defense, nor can the mass destruction of critical infrastructure necessary to maintain state functioning. As Israel and Lebanon engage in direct talks for the first time in over 30 years, any enduring agreement must reckon with the destruction wrought, restoring Lebanese sovereignty and integrity while addressing the security concerns that have long destabilized Israel’s northern border.
by Abby Greenblatt
