Despite renewed talk in Washington of a ceasefire in Lebanon, the reality facing Israeli occupation forces deployed in southern Lebanon appears markedly different, according to military affairs correspondent Yaniv Kubovich in Haaretz.
Israeli occupation troops operating in the area say there is little sense of any genuine de-escalation. Drones, aerial attacks, rocket fire, and attempts to target soldiers continue to occupy commanders and troops on the ground, despite US President Donald Trump’s assertion that Hezbollah had agreed to halt attacks on Israeli forces. Solely on Tuesday, the occupation forces reportedly faced ten drone-related attack attempts. The only tangible change, soldiers say, has been a reduction in launches toward the occupied territories and the suspension of attacks in Beirut.
Kubovich reports that the Israeli military maintains that the US-backed ceasefire directives do not apply to the areas where ground forces are operating. Field commanders say neither the threat environment nor operational tasks have changed and that fighting continues at nearly the same intensity.
According to the report, the Israeli military has drawn a distinction between areas under Northern Command responsibility—including buffer zones and territories entered during ground operations—and areas overseen directly by the General Staff, including Beirut, major urban centers, and deeper regions of Lebanon. While little has changed in the first category, military attacks in the second were halted following a direct request from Trump.
Senior officers described an unprecedented situation in which authority over the use of force is no longer determined solely by the Israeli occupation government or military leadership but is increasingly influenced by decisions made in the White House. Planned strikes against targets in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon—including operations requiring extensive preparation by the air force, intelligence services, and other military branches—were reportedly canceled at the last moment.
The situation has reportedly generated unease within the Zionist entity’s military leadership. Many officers say they have never operated under conditions where battlefield decisions with direct consequences for troops are so immediately affected by a foreign government’s political choices.
For commanders, uncertainty has become a defining feature of the conflict. Commanders prepare large-scale plans, mobilize forces, and ready complex operations without any guarantee of their execution. Some military officers also believe recent public statements by the Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the defense minister undermined military initiatives. According to those officers, key targets had been awaiting favorable operational conditions, but inflammatory political rhetoric increased international and political pressure, complicating their execution.
Kubovich further reports that military and security officials presented political leaders with multiple escalation scenarios ahead of a proposed expansion of military operations. Some options included strikes deep inside Lebanon and broader campaigns targeting Hezbollah’s centers of influence.
The military reportedly believed such operations could inflict greater damage on Hezbollah but would require substantial resources and lengthy preparations. Ultimately, the plans were not fully approved. The operation that did proceed was more limited than the alternatives proposed and has now also been suspended following the US push for a ceasefire.
According to military and security sources, a widening gap between actual battlefield outcomes and the rhetoric promoted by political leaders and official spokespersons has fueled frustration and eroded public confidence among Israeli settlers.
In this context, Israeli military officials acknowledge that while Hezbollah has suffered significant blows, it has not been defeated. Its command structure remains intact, much of its organizational framework survives, and substantial capabilities have been preserved for the future.
Field commanders have also warned against a return to the institutional culture that prevailed before the October 7 attacks. They argue that conformity with senior leadership is increasing while critical voices are being marginalized. According to officers, the perspectives of commanders on the ground are often ignored, and few within the military are willing to challenge operational decisions.
Israel currently maintains military operations across Lebanon, Syria, and the Gaza Strip. Each front demands significant manpower, intelligence resources, logistical support, and defensive capabilities. Field commanders warn that such a posture is unsustainable without a clear strategic vision. Reserve forces are already under severe strain, while regular units continue to face rapid attrition.
One senior reserve officer summarized the dilemma: “The issue is not how much territory can be occupied. The issue is who will hold it a year from now. If the state does not define a strategy for all fronts, the Israeli military will eventually reach its breaking point.”
Former Israeli Army Chief: Current Situation in Lebanon Is Pointless
The concerns raised by serving officers and security officials are echoed by prominent figures from Israel’s military establishment. As criticism grows over the absence of a clear strategy, former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz has joined a widening chorus of voices questioning the government’s conduct of the war and warning that continued military operations without defined political objectives risk further deepening the Israeli occupation’s strategic predicament.
Halutz said military leaders must establish clear limits and demand solutions from the government.
Speaking to Radio 103FM about developments on the northern front and in southern Lebanon, Halutz delivered a scathing assessment of the government’s conduct.
“They sent our soldiers like sitting ducks into a shooting range. They are exposed. These soldiers are doing everything they can with courage, but they have been given undefined objectives and no clear path to achieving them,” he said.
Halutz also criticized the capture of Beaufort Castle (Qalaat Al-Shaqif), arguing that Netanyahu was seeking “symbolic victories” rather than strategic achievements.
“We seized Beaufort Castle, and Netanyahu was looking for symbols. Suddenly he remembered Begin’s symbolism from 44 years ago and clung to it. The castle means nothing without a comprehensive strategy,” he said, adding that the insistence on maintaining the current situation in Lebanon serves no purpose.
Asked whether military leaders should tell the government that enough is enough, Halutz answered unequivocally in the affirmative. “Of course. They should say, ‘This is enough.’ Let’s stop and consider another solution.'” Halutz expressed little confidence that Netanyahu’s political and diplomatic circle would challenge his decisions.
Source: Agencies (translated and edited by Al-Manar)