The Lebanese Army reacted strongly on Wednesday, 2 September, to reports attributed to the Israeli media about the attitude of some of its officers in the South. Controversy increased following the spread in Israel of statements that Lebanese officers would not wish, at this stage, to withdraw Israeli forces from certain positions, for fear of a return from Hezbollah. Without repeating the details of these accusations directly, the army command described them as fabricated information and denounced a campaign to cast doubt within the institution and to weaken the confidence of the population. The episode comes at a particularly sensitive moment, when the army must gradually strengthen its control of the South and the Israeli withdrawal remains incomplete.
Lebanese Army denounces « manufactured information »
The army command issued on Wednesday an unusually firm statement after the circulation of new information in the Israeli media. The military institution refers to « allegations attributed to the Israeli enemy media » concerning its positions and missions in South Lebanon, as well as other information that it presents as manufactured.
The army states that its military personnel comply with command directives and the missions entrusted to them. It stresses that they act within the framework of their national responsibility to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty, security and stability, « far from any other calculation or consideration ».
This formulation responds directly to the suspicion that Israeli information is seeking to install: that of Lebanese officers who would adopt, on the ground, a position different from that formally defended by the State and the military command.
The Lebanese official position remains unambiguous. Beirut calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory and the deployment of the army in the areas concerned. Presenting officers as seeking the temporary retention of Israeli soldiers is therefore tantamount to suggesting the existence of a deep divergence within the institution responsible for resuming these positions.
Lebanese officers opposed to the Israeli withdrawal?
The new controversy arose from news broadcast on Tuesday, September 1, by the Israeli public channel Kan. Citing an unidentified senior United States official, the media claimed that some Lebanese army officers would not wish, at this stage, for the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from South Lebanon.
According to this version, they fear that Hezbollah will immediately take advantage of the Israeli departure to reinvest the evacuated areas. They would therefore prefer that Israeli forces remain temporarily in place until the Lebanese army has the necessary means to prevent the return of the Shiite movement.
The statement is politically explosive. However, it is not publicly supported either by the identity of the officers concerned, by a Lebanese Army document or by an official US statement. It is based on statements attributed by an Israeli media to an anonymous American source.
The Lebanese command does not recognize any such divergence. His Wednesday communiqué, on the contrary, reaffirms the unity of the chain of command and the commitment of the military to carry out the missions assigned to them.
The distinction between what is confirmed and what is reported is therefore essential. It is established that this claim was circulated in the Israeli media. It is not established that Lebanese officers actually requested or wished to maintain the Israeli army in Lebanon.
A particularly sensitive charge for the army
The information relates to one of the fundamental principles of the Lebanese official position: the Israeli army is considered by Beirut as a force occupying portions of the national territory whose withdrawal is required.
In this context, the desire of Lebanese officers to see this extended presence is to question their institutional position. This may also give the impression that part of the army considers Israel a necessary bulwark against Hezbollah.
This is precisely what the press release of September 2 seeks to neutralize. The command insists on the national responsibility of its military and asserts that they perform their missions without external considerations.
The army is not content to deny. It attacks the supposed purpose of the campaign.
According to her, the time chosen to disseminate this information reveals « the gravity of the attempts against the army and its command ». The aim would be to « sew doubt within the institution » and undermine confidence between the armed forces and the Lebanese.
The vocabulary used reflects the sensitivity of the file. For the command, it is not simply a matter of correcting erroneous information, but of responding to what it considers to be an operation that could affect the cohesion of the institution.
Hezbollah at the Heart of the Israeli Story
The argument attributed to Lebanese officers is based on a real and central question in the negotiations: what happens after the Israeli withdrawal?
Israel has been asserting for several months that its withdrawal must be accompanied by guarantees preventing Hezbollah from restoring its military positions in the evacuated areas. The Israeli authorities consider that the only departure of their forces is not sufficient if the infrastructure of the movement is subsequently reconstituted.
Lebanon, for its part, affirms that its army must exercise State authority in the South. The negotiations therefore include the ability of the Lebanese Armed Forces to deploy to, secure and prevent the return of the evacuated areas to a military space beyond its control.
It is in this space between the Israeli and Lebanese positions that the current rumours are inserted. By assigning some Lebanese officers the same concerns as those expressed by Israel about the possible return of Hezbollah, the Israeli account suggests a convergence between Lebanese military and Israeli officials that the Lebanese command rejects.
A precedent in July against army officers
The controversy of September 2 is not isolated. At the beginning of July, further information about Lebanese army officers was circulated in Israeli media.
According to the information, Israel transmitted through the United States a list containing the names of Lebanese senior officers and requested that they be excluded from deployments in certain parts of the South Lebanon.
The justification put forward was again linked to Hezbollah. The officers concerned were suspected, in the narrative, of maintaining links with the movement or not acting sufficiently against its activities.
A Lebanese military source formally denied this information on 6 July. She claimed that the information concerning an alleged Israeli list of officers was unfounded.
In less than two months, two narratives directly targeted the behaviour of army cadres in the South. The first suggested that Israel wanted to prevent some officers from performing their duties there. The latter now asserts that some Lebanese soldiers themselves would not want the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces.
This repetition helps explain the firmness of the press release published on Wednesday.
Control of the South is the central issue
These controversies arise at a time when the Lebanese army is at the heart of the mechanism for stabilizing the South. Its deployment must accompany the Israeli withdrawal and allow the Lebanese State to regain control of the sectors concerned.
The mechanism is based on a succession of steps. Israeli forces must evacuate certain areas. The Lebanese army must then enter, secure access, search for explosives and resume positions. The process must also prevent the relocation of non-State military infrastructure.
This sequence is particularly delicate because the army cannot simply enter immediately into each abandoned area. Roads, buildings and land may need to be inspected and cleared prior to full deployment.
The village of Zawtar al-Gharbiyah provided a concrete example of this mechanism in July.
Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh, first test of the mechanism
On 21 July, the Lebanese army entered Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh after an Israeli withdrawal under a pilot scheme. The Lebanese military began with demining and security operations prior to the fuller deployment of the units.
Experience should serve as a model for other sectors. It allows us to test the necessary coordination to prevent an Israeli withdrawal from creating a security vacuum.
It is precisely around these « pilot zones » that the concerns attributed to Lebanese officers were reportedly expressed in Israeli reports. Israel would be dissatisfied with the pace of operations against Hezbollah infrastructure and would consider that progress was insufficient in some areas.
The question is therefore less of the theoretical presence of the Lebanese army than of its ability to take immediate effective control of an evacuated territory.
This depends on available personnel, mine clearance, intelligence, access to the various sectors and the security situation.
Israel seeks guarantees before withdrawing
Israel maintains that its withdrawal must be linked to security assurances. His Government stated that it wanted to prevent any reconstruction of Hezbollah’s military capabilities near the border.
This position explains the continued existence of Israeli forces in several sectors and the continued operations in South Lebanon. On the contrary, Beirut considers that this presence constitutes a violation of its sovereignty and calls for its withdrawal.
Disagreement creates a difficult circle to break. Israel claims that it cannot withdraw without guarantees that Hezbollah will not return. Lebanon responds that its army cannot fully exercise its sovereignty as long as Israeli forces remain present and continue their operations.
The controversy over Lebanese officers directly affects this contradiction. If Lebanese soldiers really asked Israel to stay, it would strengthen the Israeli position. The denial of the command is therefore also intended to prevent this assertion from becoming a political argument for the continuation of Israeli positions.
Army invokes international support
The communiqué of 2 September also stressed the confidence that the army would enjoy with Arab and foreign countries that supported it.
The Command affirms that friendly States continue to provide assistance because they consider its role essential, especially in the exceptional circumstances of Lebanon.
This passage is not insignificant. The armed forces rely heavily on external assistance for some of their equipment, training and operational capabilities. The United States is one of its main international supporters.
However, the information disseminated by Kan is precisely attributed to a senior American official.
By recalling the confidence of its international partners, the Lebanese command implicitly opposes the anonymous statements attributed to an American official the reality of the institutional cooperation between the army and its partners.
A battle about the credibility of the institution
The polemic thus exceeds the military movements in the South. It concerns the credibility of the army as it becomes the central player in border control.
In order for the mechanism to function, the army must be considered capable of implementing the decisions of the Lebanese State independently of Hezbollah, Israel or any other power.
Any information suggesting that some officers would follow another line weakens this position.
This is why the command states that disinformation campaigns, « no matter what party is behind them, » will not alter the institution’s cohesion or its ability to fulfil its tasks.
The army also calls on politicians, media and citizens not to relay rumours and refer to official military sources for information about the institution and its command.
An army caught between several pressures
However, the situation remains particularly complex for Lebanese forces. They must gradually regain control of deeply damaged areas, manage explosive remnants of war and prevent a resumption of fighting.
At the same time, they must meet international expectations regarding the State’s arms monopoly and the security of South Lebanon.
Israel demands results against Hezbollah’s military capabilities. The Lebanese authorities demand Israeli withdrawal. International partners want to avoid a new war. The inhabitants wish to be able to return to their villages without fear of further operations.
These requests are not always compatible in their timing.
An Israeli evacuation too slow is considered an occupation by Lebanon. A rapid withdrawal without sufficient Lebanese deployment is presented by Israel as a risk of the return of Hezbollah. The army is therefore at the centre of a process whose each delay can be used by either side.
Rumors touch the essential link of the device
It is in this context that the campaign denounced on Wednesday takes its true scope.
If the Lebanese people begin to doubt the loyalty of some officers, the army loses some of the authority it needs to deploy. If Israel claims that the army cannot prevent the return of Hezbollah, it has an additional argument to maintain its positions. If foreign officials doubt the cohesion of command, international aid can itself become more political.
The command therefore seeks to close this breach quickly.
He claims that the military remains subject to their directives, that their missions are determined solely by their responsibility towards Lebanon and that the campaigns aimed at the institution will not alter their actions.
Kan’s information remains based on an anonymous American source. No Lebanese officer publicly stated that he wished to retain the Israeli army in the country.
The immediate issue will now be on the ground. The forthcoming Israeli withdrawals to the pilot areas, followed by the effective deployment of the Lebanese army, will help to measure whether the mechanism is making real progress. It is also on this ground that the military institution will be able to regain control of the areas evacuated without allowing the security vacuum invoked by Israel to justify the maintenance of its forces.
