Avi Ashkenazi remembers the dust of Yohmor, a small Lebanese village near the Litani River, from a lifetime ago. In 1982, he was a deputy battalion commander in Israel’s tank units, stepping into command after his own superior was killed in action during the push toward Beirut.
Last week, during a brief visit home, Ashkenazi met with his nephew, who is currently deployed in southern Lebanon. The conversation revealed a haunting symmetry: the nephew told him he was stationed in Yohmor. For Ashkenazi, the realization that his family was fighting in the same village 44 years apart served as a visceral reminder of a recurring national trauma.
The current ground incursion into southern Lebanon has reignited a fundamental debate within Israel: whether military force alone can deliver lasting security, or if the absence of a clear political strategy risks drawing the country back into a costly, open-ended conflict. This tension—between the desire to “finish the job” and the fear of a “Lebanese quagmire”—now defines the Israeli approach to Hezbollah.
The stakes are immediate. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated that whereas he supports a U.S.-led suspension of strikes against Iran to facilitate negotiations, that ceasefire does not include Lebanon. The Israeli army has since executed what it describes as its largest offensive against Hezbollah infrastructure since the start of the war, targeting command centers in Beirut, the Beqaa Valley, and the south. Beirut reported that 112 people were killed in those strikes.
The Cycle of the ‘Security Zone’
The current strategy of maintaining security control south of the Litani River mirrors a historical pattern that many veterans and analysts warn is doomed to repeat. In 1982, Israel entered Lebanon to push the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) away from its northern border. While the PLO leadership eventually evacuated, Israel remained for another 18 years, establishing a southern security zone in 1985.
That period saw the rise of Hezbollah, the Shiite militia backed by Iran, and the deaths of approximately 700 Israeli soldiers beyond the initial 370 lost during the 1982 invasion. Under intense domestic pressure, Israel finally withdrew in 2000.
Defense Minister Israel Katz recently affirmed that disarming Hezbollah remains a “top objective,” noting that homes used as outposts in border villages would be destroyed. Though, a senior military official admitted on the same day that fully disarming the group would be unrealistic without occupying all of Lebanon—an option not currently under consideration.
Diplomacy vs. Force
For some security experts, the military maneuver is only a prerequisite for a diplomatic solution. Chuck Freilich, a former deputy national security adviser and professor at Tel Aviv University and Columbia University, argues that the current goal is to push Hezbollah roughly 10 kilometers from the border to neutralize anti-tank missile threats.
Freilich suggests that the “winning strategy” is not the endless targeting of infrastructure that can be rebuilt, but rather working with the Lebanese government and international forces to implement a genuine disarmament process. This would likely require Israeli concessions, including a full withdrawal of troops from southern Lebanon.
Conversely, the human cost of the current incursion is mounting. Twelve Israeli soldiers have been killed as of this week, with troops dismantling infrastructure village by village. Reports from the field suggest air support has been limited because many pilots are diverted to the Iranian front. Ayelet Hashahar Saydoff, founder of the movement Mothers at the Front, warns that some soldiers are entering combat with training that has been shortened by several months.
A Crisis of Confidence
The debate over the “Lebanese quagmire” is mirrored in a sharp decline of trust in the Israeli government’s ability to manage the conflict. A recent poll by the Institute of National Security Studies (INSS) found that 68% of respondents reported low confidence in the government. Only 46% believe Hezbollah can actually be disarmed.
This frustration has boiled over among military families. Following the death of four reconnaissance soldiers in late March, parents sent a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu criticizing “extremely unreasonable” operating conditions and the perceived exploitation of young soldiers who have been fighting on multiple fronts for three years.
Gary Cohen, a writer and former paratrooper who fought in 1982, echoes this sentiment. While he describes Lebanon as one of the most beautiful places he has ever visited, he views the current trajectory with skepticism. “This government is very solid at starting wars,” Cohen said. “It’s got no idea, or maybe no inclination, to finish.”
The Demand for a Final Solution
Despite the warnings of veterans, there is a powerful current of demand for decisive action from those living on the northern border. Liat Cohen Rabib, a 30-year resident of Metula, argues that the cycle of conflict is unsustainable. With Hezbollah’s long-range missiles now threatening all of Israel, she believes there is a national interest in solving the threat “once and for all.”
However, Rabib and others, including former MP Ofer Shelah, warn that a permanent security zone would merely create a “living fence” for Israeli soldiers and provide favorable conditions for guerrilla warfare without actually stopping rocket fire.
As Israel navigates an election year, the logic of political and military interests may override strategic reasoning. The immediate focus remains on the ground maneuvers in southern Lebanon and the ongoing pressure to dismantle Hezbollah’s infrastructure, but the long-term exit strategy remains unwritten.
The next critical checkpoint will be the evaluation of the ground maneuver’s effectiveness in securing northern border communities and whether the Israeli government will pivot toward the diplomatic concessions suggested by security analysts to achieve a permanent disarmament of Hezbollah.
We invite our readers to share their perspectives on the balance between military force and diplomacy in the comments below.
