| “The Army safeguards Lebanon’s unity and civil peace.” |
** The army is committed to the principles of civil peace... a policy and approach!
|
“The Army safeguards Lebanon’s unity and civil peace.”
Joseph Kosseifi, Head of the Press Editors Syndicate 21/08/2026
(See translation in Arabic section)
Sydney-Middle East Times Int'l: Politicians and military experts closely monitoring the situation in Lebanon—down to its smallest details—agree that operational conditions in southern Lebanon are extremely difficult and that Israel’s next steps in the region cannot be predicted, particularly in light of its failure to honour its commitments.
This is not limited to Lebanon; the same pattern is evident in Gaza. Tel Aviv’s inconsistency in adhering to agreements further complicates matters in Lebanon, because the country is inevitably affected by developments around it, limiting its ability to impose outcomes or act independently. All the indicators suggest that the situation is far from reassuring.
The same politicians and military experts emphasise that the Lebanese Army is operating within the framework of the principles set out by President Joseph Aoun and the policy established by the Council of Ministers. It is neither acting outside the national consensus nor pursuing an independent agenda.
Its actions on the ground are aimed at completing the missions entrusted to it and preserving internal unity, which remains the foundation of Lebanon’s survival and stability. If that unity is weakened, the country will move towards further deterioration.
Sources with extensive knowledge of behind-the-scenes developments deny that any serious discussion concerning the Ali Al-Taher Hill took place during the recent meetings. They say the matter was not discussed with the head of the verification group, Admiral Joseph Clearfield, although some ideas may have been raised informally.
Questions remain over how the Lebanese Army could assume control of a site of such size—and from whom—particularly since no consultations have taken place with Hezbollah on the matter.
Politicians and military experts believe that attention must focus on comprehensive solutions, rather than partial or temporary arrangements. The solution itself must be comprehensive. They stress that the state, particularly the Lebanese Army, cannot permit any internal action that could lead to armed confrontation.
They also note that, from the first day of the war, Israel has sought through its conduct to turn the conflict into an internal Lebanese problem. It has attempted to differentiate between areas of the south according to their sectarian composition, exploiting domestic sensitivities. Nothing would make Israel’s task easier than confrontation among the Lebanese themselves.
A comprehensive solution can begin only when Israel withdraws completely beyond Lebanon’s borders.
The initial ceasefire agreement represented a lost opportunity. The international community failed to exert sufficient pressure on Tel Aviv to honour its commitments south of the Litani River.
According to UNIFIL, no rockets were launched from the Lebanese side except on one occasion. The Lebanese Army arrested those responsible, maintained control of the land border to the best of its ability, detained four Hamas members and seized weapons depots. It demonstrated that it was serious about fulfilling its obligations.
The Army was preparing to take similar measures when rockets were launched on 2 March, and it informed the Mechanism Committee accordingly. Israel, however, refused to allow this and launched its incursion 45 minutes later.
The reality is that the wait had already been prolonged, with 500 people killed by 2 March. This development was neither minor nor unavoidable. It could have been prevented had there been a determined effort to compel Tel Aviv to respect the agreement.
The politicians and experts point out that Israel considers every area of Lebanon a “legitimate” target, while Lebanese public opinion remains dangerously divided, causing serious harm to the country’s internal stability.
The Army should not be expected to accept praise merely for deploying to areas where it is already present, particularly when the Israeli military continues to exercise control over them through firepower.
The politicians and experts further note that the Lebanese Army regards anyone occupying Lebanese territory or violating the country’s sovereignty as hostile.
Lebanon’s military delegation to the negotiations strongly defended every inch of the country’s territory and firmly rejected every attempt to undermine it. In this sense, the delegation has proven especially uncompromising whenever Lebanon’s fundamental national principles are at stake.
However, these politicians and experts acknowledge that, given Israel’s excessive and unchecked military power—and the international community’s failure to exert the necessary pressure—the available solutions remain limited.
The Framework Agreement has nevertheless succeeded in containing the ceasefire process within defined boundaries. In particular, it has helped prevent attacks against Beirut, its infrastructure and the southern suburbs, as well as drone strikes on the Jiyeh highway.
Any criticism directed at the Lebanese Army, therefore, amounts largely to political posturing, one-upmanship and incitement. The Lebanese people trust the Army because it combats terrorism and drug trafficking, monitors the borders and works to secure them. It continues to perform all these duties simultaneously.
In any case, questions remain about the United States’ role in the negotiations. Western diplomats in Beirut believe Washington wants to restrain Israel and is capable of doing so. They say the United States is applying pressure in certain areas, but Israel continues to pursue its own agenda, independently of other considerations.
These diplomats do not regard the negotiations as a mistake, but stress that they have not yet concluded—even though they have so far failed to produce the desired results.
All sides are now awaiting the outcomes of Israel’s general election and the United States midterm elections. The situation remains open to further developments, events and unexpected surprises, amid the continuing confrontation between Washington and Tehran.
. |
