A Ceasefire Without Withdrawal

President Donald Trump announced a 10-day temporary ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, set to take effect Thursday afternoon. The agreement pauses Israel's relentless assault on southern Lebanon, which has displaced over 1.2 million people and killed at least 2,000 since early March.

Yet moments after the announcement, an Israeli security official confirmed to Reuters that "Israel has no plans to withdraw its military from southern Lebanon during the announced 10-day ceasefire." The declaration lays bare what this ceasefire actually represents: not an end to hostilities, but a rebranding of ongoing occupation.

Why This 'Ceasefire' Is Different

Israel and the United States frame the war as a campaign against Hezbollah — but it is the Lebanese civilian population bearing the brunt. Lebanese journalist Lylla Younes described on Democracy Now! a "scorched-earth campaign" in which Israel is demolishing entire villages, mosques, and cultural sites. Her own family's village in the southern border region was bombed this week.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has stated openly that even after the current war ends, Israel intends to maintain control over territory up to the Litani River in southern Lebanon, with all border villages to be destroyed. What Israel calls a "security buffer zone" amounts to de facto annexation.

The precedent from Gaza makes these concerns concrete. Under what has been called a Gaza ceasefire, Israel has killed over 765 Palestinians and injured more than 2,000, while maintaining a ground occupation of at least half the territory. The word "ceasefire" has been fundamentally hollowed out.

Hezbollah spokesperson and Lebanese MP Ibrahim Moussawi said the group would "respect the ceasefire" while expressing hope it would be "a beginning of a course of Israeli withdrawal." Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said he has "full hope" that displaced civilians can return south.

But these hopes stand in stark contradiction to Israel's openly stated annexationist intent.

A Century of Ambition: The History of Israeli Claims on Lebanon

Israel's territorial ambitions toward southern Lebanon are not new. Mireille Rebeiz, chair of Middle East Studies at Dickinson College, notes that "the policy of occupying and annexing south Lebanon up to the Litani River has long held influence among parts of the Israeli government," tracing it to Zionist leaders before Israeli independence in 1948.

Israel has invaded Lebanon seven times in the past half century. From 1978 to 2000, it maintained an 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon — the very occupation that gave rise to Hezbollah. Prime Minister Netanyahu's far-right government has reinvigorated these ambitions, cloaking territorial expansion in the language of security.

What Comes Next [AI Analysis]

The probability that this ceasefire delivers meaningful relief to Lebanese civilians is low. With Israel explicitly refusing to withdraw, the 10-day pause is likely to serve as cover for military redeployment and consolidation of control.

If the Gaza pattern repeats, civilian return to southern Lebanon will likely be restricted or impossible. As Younes warned, even return may mean coming back to rubble.

Absent sustained international pressure, Israel's plan to establish a buffer zone extending to the Litani River is likely to solidify into permanent territorial control. Without mechanisms compelling Israeli withdrawal, this ceasefire may follow the established pattern: a pause in fighting, followed by normalized occupation.