Lebanon stands on the brink of a significant milestone as the 60-day deadline approaches for the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from its territory, as stipulated in the November 27 ceasefire agreement. The war, described as "unplanned," left a trail of destruction across Lebanon, devastating both infrastructure and civilian life. Yet, as the January 26 deadline looms, Israel attempts to extend its presence in southern Lebanon, despite global consensus on the necessity of withdrawal and the deployment of Lebanese forces in the region.

According to retired Brigadier General Naji Malaeb, a researcher in military and strategic affairs, Israeli media reports indicate that Israel has requested to retain control of five positions within southern Lebanon. This move aligns with security assurances made by U.S. President Joe Biden to Israel after the October 8 escalation, committing to prevent any future threats to its borders. These assurances, which reportedly cost the U.S. $22 billion and involved the delivery of 88,000 tons of ammunition and weapons, have emboldened Israel to fortify its security measures across multiple fronts.

Speaking to Kataeb.org website, Malaeb noted that Israel began implementing these measures immediately after the ceasefire by establishing a 200-kilometer buffer zone in Syria, extending to Mount Hermon, an area Israel considers strategically vital. Similarly, in Gaza, Israel created a buffer zone 300 to 500 meters deep within its borders. A similar strategy appears to be at play in southern Lebanon, where Israel reportedly aims to establish a buffer zone of 5 to 6 kilometers to shield its settlements from direct rocket and artillery fire.

Israel’s delay in completing its withdrawal, Malaeb suggested, is part of its broader security strategy, likely carried out with U.S. approval. Israeli officials have also cited the discovery of weapons stockpiles in the south as justification for their continued operations. Malaeb predicted that the Israeli Cabinet’s decision to extend the withdrawal timeline by one month would receive U.S. backing and be implemented on the ground.

Israel's ongoing operations in southern Lebanon are heavily focused on locating and dismantling weapons stockpiles believed to belong to Hezbollah. Recent Israeli strikes in Hanata and Yuhfufa in the Bekaa Valley were reportedly based on intelligence about weapons in the area. Malaeb explained that Israel remains wary of Hezbollah's ability to maintain arms caches in southern Lebanon and is determined to eliminate these potential threats before withdrawing.

The retired general emphasized that the core issue lies in the Lebanese government's future approach to addressing these security concerns. Lebanese officials and citizens alike demand that Hezbollah surrender its weapons and that the government assume full responsibility for eliminating threats from Lebanese territory toward Israel. This, Malaeb argued, would remove Israel’s pretext for continuing its military operations in the region.

Malaeb dismissed the idea that the situation in Syria directly influences Israel’s operations in Lebanon, asserting that the matter has become a strictly Lebanese issue.

“Our situation in Lebanon is different from what is happening in Syria,” he said. “All Lebanese aspire to see the country’s defense solely under the control of the Lebanese state and its legitimate armed forces.”

As the deadline for withdrawal nears, Lebanon remains on edge. Israeli delays and continued military activity threaten to undermine the fragile truce and the optimism sparked by the agreement. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has been in contact with U.S. and French officials, urging them to ensure Israel adheres to the agreement. However, the situation remains precarious, with the possibility of an extended Israeli presence in southern Lebanon complicating efforts to stabilize the region.

For Lebanon, the upcoming days will be critical in determining whether the agreement’s terms are fulfilled or if further delays will deepen the challenges facing the nation’s recovery and sovereignty.