‘A Ticking Time Bomb’: Experts Warn Israel–Lebanon Border Is One Misstep Away From Renewed Confrontation
Israeli and Lebanese officials trade accusations over Hezbollah’s weapons, stalled disarmament plans, and civilian displacement on both sides of the border
As Lebanon struggles to implement the US-brokered 2024 ceasefire framework, which commits Beirut to disarming all nonstate armed groups by the end of 2025, a recent remark by a senior Lebanese government figure has ignited new tensions on the already volatile northern front. The official suggested that Hezbollah has a “right” to rearm—a declaration that landed poorly in Jerusalem, where Israeli leaders have repeatedly warned that the group is rebuilding its capabilities far faster than the Lebanese state is trying to curb them.
The comments come at a moment of mounting friction: Israel is accelerating targeted strikes against Hezbollah positions; Lebanon has filed an urgent complaint to the UN Security Council over an Israeli concrete barrier it says crosses the Blue Line; and tens of thousands of Israeli civilians displaced since last year’s conflict remain unable to return home.
Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1701—which ended the 2006 war—have faltered. Patrols by the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) continue, but neither Israel nor Lebanon believes the mechanism can resolve the deeper structural failures that have persisted for nearly two decades.
A recent UN report warns that both Hezbollah and Israel have increased military activity along the frontier throughout 2025, raising concerns that “limited engagements could escalate quickly” in the absence of a durable political arrangement.
Inside Lebanon, the claim that Hezbollah has a “right” to rearm has been widely interpreted as political signaling rather than a formal shift in policy.
Lebanese political analyst Azzam, who asked that his surname be withheld, told The Media Line that the remark should be read as strategic posturing meant to bolster the official’s standing within his community in response to Israeli actions in the south. He emphasized that the government still backs the disarmament framework and that top leaders remain committed to a negotiated process that eventually brings Hezbollah’s arsenal under state control.
Figures like President [Joseph] Aoun and Prime Minister [Nawaf] Salam have made clear that Hezbollah’s arms must eventually fall under state authority—through gradual, negotiated mechanisms, not abrupt confrontation
“Figures like President [Joseph] Aoun and Prime Minister [Nawaf] Salam have made clear that Hezbollah’s arms must eventually fall under state authority—through gradual, negotiated mechanisms, not abrupt confrontation,” he noted.
From the Israeli side, the reaction is sharper. Avraham Levine, speaker and digital content manager at the Alma Research and Education Center, told The Media Line that Jerusalem sees little evidence that Beirut has shown real movement toward its disarmament pledges and that the only actor consistently following its own agenda is Hezbollah, which openly acknowledges rebuilding its forces.
“The only party in Lebanon staying true to its word is Hezbollah itself,” he said, adding that the rhetoric of Naim Qassem, the group’s leader, makes clear it won’t relinquish its weapons and is prepared to intimidate its own government.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
The only party in Lebanon staying true to its word is Hezbollah itself
Beirut’s decision to file an urgent complaint to the UN Security Council over a newly erected Israeli concrete wall—which UNIFIL says overlaps the Blue Line and restricts Lebanese access to more than 4,000 square meters [1 acre] of land—has further inflamed tensions.
Azzam said that Lebanon sees the move as more than a technical dispute. Beirut’s complaint was meant to shift the narrative by spotlighting Israeli actions along the Blue Line and positioning Israel—not Lebanon—as the party undermining the ceasefire arrangements. “Officials want to demonstrate that it is Israel breaching the ceasefire arrangements,” he said.
Levine rejected the notion that Israel is trying to claim new territory. “I do not have sufficient information about the so-called violation. Israel has no need or ambition to take over more land there. The only goal Israel has in mind is to create and maintain security for Israeli civilians living in the north,” he noted.
Analysts on both sides agree that the northern front is balanced on a narrow edge.
This status quo serves all sides—while still being a ticking time bomb
Azzam described a fluid environment in which the likelihood of confrontation often shifts, with both sides engaging in calibrated steps that maintain a precarious balance. He said this pattern allows all actors to pursue their interests even as it leaves the border vulnerable to sudden escalation. “These scenarios oscillate every few days. … This status quo serves all sides—while still being a ticking time bomb,” he said.
He also noted that Lebanon has quietly floated frameworks combining border demarcation, mutual guarantees, and phased disarmament, but stressed that “Israel would not approve any of this without what it considers a strategic solution to the Hezbollah problem in the north.”
On the Israeli side, the assessment is similar: Stability is fragile, and miscalculation is a constant threat.
Levine said both parties prefer to maintain the current situation and are actively rebuilding, but warned that even a small error could trigger a rapid escalation. He added that he sees no plausible path for Hezbollah to give up its weapons or for the Lebanese Armed Forces to mount a significant operation against the group. In his view, Resolution 1701 proved ineffective from 2006 to 2023, and the underlying conditions remain much the same today.
Inside Israel, more than 60,000 displaced residents from northern communities have yet to return home, fueling pressure on the government to create conditions for safe resettlement.
Levine said the return of displaced Israelis has become central to national policy and argued that Israel will keep pressuring Hezbollah to create the conditions for safe resettlement. He warned that even that may not suffice without deeper changes on the Lebanese side. “I see the return of all evacuees to their homes in the north as extremely important,” he said.
Lebanon, too, has been facing widespread civilian displacement—a point often overlooked in regional and international coverage.
Thousands of Lebanese families fled southern towns like Bint Jbeil, Maroun El Ras, and Aitaroun during Israeli bombardments in 2023–2024, and many still cannot return due to destroyed homes, unexploded ordnance, or fear of renewed fighting.
Azzam observed that these civilian realities shape the political debate in Beirut in ways outsiders often miss. He explained that although Lebanon remains divided along sectarian lines, communities in the south share the burden of widespread destruction and displacement. These experiences, he said, strongly influence public attitudes toward Hezbollah, the army, and the risks of renewed conflict. “Entire neighborhoods were damaged or flattened, and thousands were displaced,” he explained.
He also noted that Beirut is under intense external pressure to act quickly but faces the reality that any internal confrontation with Hezbollah could trigger disastrous consequences. Given the limits on the army’s authority and capability, he said, the government has little choice but to move cautiously. “The army is neither equipped nor authorized to forcibly disarm Hezbollah,” he said.
With Israel determined to secure its northern border and Hezbollah refusing to relinquish its arsenal, the ingredients for a renewed confrontation remain firmly in place. Both sides say they want to avoid another war—yet both continue preparing for the possibility of one.
Diplomatic frameworks exist, but implementation has stalled. International mediators warn that without visible progress on disarmament and border arrangements, the next crisis could erupt without warning.
For now, the frontier sits in an uneasy position—shaped by political fragility, military posturing, and the parallel reality that both Israeli and Lebanese civilians remain displaced by a conflict neither government seems fully able to resolve.
