The ceasefire announced in Lebanon has not yet provided the main answer to the question that remains key for Israel: will the north of the country become truly safer? Moreover, the pause in hostilities increasingly reveals another dangerous scenario — the risk of a new internal explosion within Lebanon itself, where sectarian contradictions, armed structures, and external pressure are once again converging at one point.
For the Israeli audience, this story is important not only as another episode beyond the border. It is about a situation where any seemingly favorable external solution can very quickly turn into a new crisis at Israel’s northern borders, in Galilee and the Haifa area, where the issue of stability in Lebanon is directly linked to everyday security.
Return to the south and new uncertainty
From the very morning after the ceasefire was announced, the civilian population began to massively return to southern Lebanon, including beyond the Litani River. And this is happening despite recommendations not to do so. Even previously destroyed bridges, which were supposed to hinder movement, still allow crossing in some places, and there are also bypass routes.
This is where one of the most dangerous practical problems for Israel arises. Israeli military forces, which remain on Lebanese territory, are formally in a ceasefire condition. But on the ground, the situation looks much less clear-cut: if militants begin to return to these areas along with the villagers, the line between civilian movement and the restoration of terrorist infrastructure will quickly blur.
Why this worries Israel
For residents of northern Israel, any such process is perceived not as an abstract Middle Eastern drama, but as a direct signal of risk. If the territory is once again filled with structures associated with Hezbollah, the question of returning Israeli security to pre-crisis levels remains open.
Against this backdrop, it is particularly telling that numerous photos and videos of people returning to southern Lebanon are accompanied by Hezbollah flags, not Lebanese national flags. This visual sequence explains a lot without additional commentary. It shows who exactly claims symbolic control over the area and who seeks to establish themselves as the main force on the ground.
Direct negotiations and the threat of internal explosion
Another line of tension is related to the possibility of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. Instead of automatically lowering the temperature, such a step can, on the contrary, sharply intensify internal contradictions within Lebanon itself. For a country with a heavy memory of civil war and an extremely fragile balance between religious and political camps, this is not a diplomatic formality but a potential trigger for new destabilization.
Sources close to the Lebanese president’s administration claim that the country’s leadership is acting extremely cautiously. On one hand, Beirut is under pressure from the US and international players interested in advancing the diplomatic process with Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Lebanese authorities understand how explosive the internal scene remains, especially if Shiite movements Hezbollah and Amal perceive such steps as an attempt to break the established balance of power.
It is at this point that it becomes clear that the formula ‘ceasefire equals stabilization’ does not work automatically. Sometimes a ceasefire only highlights all the hidden contradictions that were previously overshadowed by the war itself.
What hinders the disarmament of Hezbollah
The disarmament of Hezbollah in the short term does not seem like a realistic goal. This structure still has a significant support base, and the group continues to present itself as a force that supposedly protects Lebanon’s territorial integrity.
Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Naeem Qassem recently stated that the Iran-backed group will defend Lebanon until the areas of the country occupied by Israel are returned. Such rhetoric leaves no room for a quick internal compromise. On the contrary, it reinforces the notion that any political settlement will be accompanied by a struggle for the right to speak on behalf of the state.
In this context, NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency notes that for Israel, the problem lies not only in the current status of the ceasefire but also in which force will emerge from this pause more strengthened — official Beirut or armed structures associated with Iran.
Lebanon at a dangerous edge
Signals from within Lebanon itself are becoming increasingly harsh. A source close to Hezbollah warned that the country is on the brink of a major explosion, and the president and prime minister will be held responsible for possible bloodshed. A deputy from the ‘Party of Allah’ also stated that the worst scenario for the Lebanese is an internal conflict, and that direct negotiations with Israel could lead to such a development.
For Israel, these warnings have a dual meaning. On one hand, they show how fragile the neighboring state remains. On the other hand, they remind that any internal Lebanese destabilization will almost inevitably affect Israel’s northern border, where they already know too well the price of illusions about temporary calm.
The situation is further complicated by Jerusalem’s position. Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Israel remains in the ten-kilometer zone on Lebanese territory and does not intend to leave. This means that even with a formal ceasefire, the military dimension of the conflict has not disappeared. It has only changed form.
Against this backdrop, all elements of a future crisis are already present simultaneously: the return of the population, Hezbollah’s symbolic dominance on the ground, pressure on the Lebanese leadership, talks about negotiations with Israel, the impossibility of quick disarmament, and direct warnings about the risk of internal bloodshed.
That is why the current ceasefire looks not like the end of the confrontation, but like a highly dangerous pause. For Lebanon, it may become a prologue to a new sectarian conflict. For Israel, it is a reminder that security in the north depends not on the word ‘ceasefire’ itself, but on who and with what flags returns to southern Lebanon.