Israeli study questions the very principle of withdrawal
Israel could seek to maintain long-term military positions in South Lebanon, even if negotiations with Beirut led to new security arrangements. This perspective is particularly evident in a study published on 12 October 2026 by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies. Its author, Reserve General Tamir Hayman, former head of Israeli military intelligence between 2018 and 2021, describes a profound transformation of Israeli defence doctrine since 7 October 2023. The most important change is the emphasis placed on territories beyond borders. In this approach, Israel’s security is no longer based solely on the ability to repel an attack. It also implies maintaining forward positions in the opposing territory in order to deter threats. This logic applied to Lebanon could make a complete withdrawal much more difficult to obtain.
The study presents ten principles designed to describe the evolution of Israeli military thinking. Hayman states that this is his own interpretation, deliberately pushed to fuel the strategic debate. It is therefore not a formal doctrine adopted by the Israeli Government. However, his analysis deserves special attention. The former head of intelligence now runs an influential institute in Israeli security circles. Above all, several orientations he describes correspond to the military practices observed in South Lebanon. The maintenance of positions across the border, preventive operations and the desire to prevent the return of Hezbollah to certain areas are part of this logic. The problem for Beirut is specific: if Israel now considers the military presence in Lebanese territory as part of its own security, the guarantees offered by the Lebanese army may no longer be sufficient to secure its withdrawal.
Permanent war replaces periods of calm
The first change described by Tamir Hayman concerns how to conceive war. In traditional Israeli doctrine, military operations should remain limited in time. The objective was to achieve a victory or advantage that would then return to a period of calm. This stability should promote the economic and social development of the country. The former head of intelligence believes that this concept has been profoundly altered since October 2023. According to his analysis, Israel now tends to view military confrontation as a lasting situation, rather than an exception. The war would no longer necessarily be followed by a long period of stability. It would become a permanent threat management tool.
This would have a direct impact on the negotiations with Lebanon. A ceasefire would no longer automatically mean the end of military operations. It could simply mark a temporary reduction in their intensity. Israel would then retain the possibility of resuming ground strikes or interventions when it considers a threat to be re-established. This approach would explain the difficulty in transforming military arrangements into lasting stability. The Lebanese authorities call for an end to the attacks and respect for their sovereignty. Hayman’s logic, on the contrary, gives a central place to freedom of military action. The disagreement therefore does not concern only the conditions of a ceasefire. It deals with the very definition of security after the end of the fighting.
Advanced defence transforms Lebanese territory into a military zone
The most worrying principle for Lebanon is advanced defence. Hayman believes that Israel should establish, where possible, defensive zones beyond its borders. The aim would be to remove threats and move confrontations to the opposing territory. This approach is not only based on border surveillance. It involves a military presence in areas outside Israeli territory. The former intelligence officer also establishes a direct link between this advanced defence and offensive operations. A defensive position could serve as a starting point for new military interventions. The safe area would therefore not be solely intended to prevent an attack. It would become part of the Israeli military strategy.
This approach profoundly alters the conditions for a possible withdrawal from the South. In a conventional sense, Israeli forces could leave the occupied territories after obtaining guarantees of border security. In the doctrine described by Hayman, their presence across this border could itself be seen as an indispensable guarantee. Withdrawal would no longer be merely a decision related to compliance with an agreement. It could be presented as a reduction in Israeli defensive capabilities. It is precisely this contradiction that threatens the negotiations. Beirut calls for the restoration of its authority throughout its territory. Israel could continue to consider certain Lebanese positions necessary for its security, regardless of the commitments made by the Lebanese authorities.
Israeli positions in the South give a concrete dimension to this doctrine
The information published on 20 October 2026 shows that the question of occupation goes beyond the theoretical debate. Israeli forces maintain positions in southern Lebanon and continue their military operations. The Lebanese authorities denounce the destruction of villages, air strikes and repeated overflights of the territory. They also call for the withdrawal of the sectors occupied under the agreement negotiated under American mediation. According to the information reported, Israel had not fulfilled the commitments expected since the conclusion of the agreement. Nor did the discussions on experimental areas lead to the progress expected by Beirut. The Israeli military presence remains one of the main obstacles to the diplomatic process.
The territorial situation could also deteriorate in the event of further regional confrontation. Information published on 20 October refers to the threats made by Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, regarding the expansion of operations in Lebanon. The hypothesis of an Israeli progression to the Awali River appears in analyses on the risks of a new war. This is not an operation already under way or a plan to be confirmed. It nevertheless illustrates the extent of the threats on Lebanese territory. Some analyses also refer to an Israeli presence representing about 6 per cent of the area of the South. This figure must be considered as an estimate reported, not as a territorial measure officially verified in the available documents.
The destroyed villages complicate the return of the inhabitants
The consequences of the Israeli presence are not limited to military positions. The destruction and displacement of people also affect living conditions in the regions concerned. The 20 October reports describe damaged villages, destroyed homes and residents prevented from returning to normal conditions. The continuation of Israeli operations complicates reconstruction efforts and the sustainable return of people. These difficulties directly concern the Lebanese authorities, who wish to restore their services and strengthen their administrative presence in the South. In particular, President Joseph Aoun called on the security forces to expand their presence in villages not occupied by Israel. This decision is intended to reassure residents and facilitate their access to public administrations.
Prolonged occupation could exacerbate these difficulties. The more destruction continues, the greater the need for the rehabilitation of villages. The return of residents depends on several conditions: security, access to housing, the functioning of infrastructure and the possibility of resuming economic activities. The presence of Lebanese forces is not necessarily sufficient to restore these conditions when military operations continue in the vicinity. Hayman’s advanced defence doctrine adds a strategic dimension to this situation. If Israel sought to retain areas beyond its border, population displacement could continue. However, the documents do not establish that the destruction observed is all part of an official plan to permanently prevent the return of the inhabitants. However, they show that their material consequences complicate the restoration of civilian life.
Tampa negotiations against two opposing concepts of security
The military meeting scheduled for 20 October 2026 in Tampa is taking place in this context. The Lebanese authorities wish to see an end to Israeli attacks, the withdrawal of the occupied territories and the implementation of the commitments contained in the framework agreement. The issue of Lebanese prisoners is also one of the issues that Beirut intends to take forward. Israel places the disarmament of Hezbollah at the centre of the discussions. Washington seeks to maintain the process and would like to strengthen the communication mechanisms between the two armies. These guidelines reveal different priorities. Lebanon calls for immediate territorial and security measures. Israel calls for safeguards regarding Hezbollah’s military capabilities. The United States is seeking to establish arrangements to continue discussions despite these differences.
The doctrine described by Hayman could further complicate this negotiation. Even if the Lebanese army obtained new commitments regarding territorial control, Israel could continue to defend the maintenance of certain advanced positions. The disagreement would then relate to the value of the guarantees offered. For Beirut, the deployment of its forces and the implementation of international commitments should allow Israeli withdrawal. In the advanced defence logic, the military presence beyond the border may remain necessary, even after new arrangements have been put in place. This contradiction would explain why some Lebanese official sources express little optimism about the Tampa meeting. They believe that discussions could maintain a diplomatic process without producing immediate change on the ground.
Hezbollah disarmament would not automatically resolve the issue of occupation
Israeli demands on Hezbollah are central to the negotiations. Israel wishes to prevent the movement from rebuilding military capabilities that could threaten its territory. At the same time, the Lebanese authorities are seeking to strengthen State control over weapons and to develop the military presence in the South. However, advanced defence doctrine introduces an additional difficulty. If Israel considers that its security requires the maintenance of military positions beyond its border, the question of occupation could remain even after the securing of guarantees concerning Hezbollah. The withdrawal would then depend on a broader Israeli assessment of regional risks.
This is one of the main lessons of the study published on 12 October. It does not demonstrate that the Israeli government has officially decided to occupy the South Lebanon on a sustainable basis. However, it shows that part of Israel’s strategic thinking envisages security through the maintenance of advanced military zones. In this context, the disarmament of Hezbollah would not necessarily be considered a sufficient condition for abandoning those positions. The difference is fundamental for Lebanese negotiators. It means that discussions on weapons may not automatically resolve the territorial issue. The Lebanese authorities should then obtain explicit commitments regarding withdrawal, regardless of security arrangements.
Prolonged occupation could survive Israeli political changes
The Israeli legislative elections of 27 October 2026 add a political dimension to the file. Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to retain power while several polls show a progression of his opponents. Donald Trump’s public support for the Israeli Prime Minister was not enough, according to the investigations published on 19 October, to radically alter electoral power relations. Military issues occupy an important place in this campaign. Tensions with Iran and Hezbollah fuel security debates. However, decisions on South Lebanon do not necessarily depend on the political future of Netanyahu alone.
Tamir Hayman’s study illustrates this broader dimension. It describes an evolution of Israeli strategic thinking that goes beyond the decisions of a particular government. If advanced defence were to be sustained in military institutions, a change of coalition would not automatically guarantee withdrawal from the occupied territories. Policy makers could adopt different approaches to negotiations, while maintaining a similar approach to security needs. This assumption does not allow for the decisions of a future Israeli government. However, it stresses that the resolution of the territorial question could require more than a change of parliamentary majority.
The future of South Lebanon will depend on the commitments achieved on the ground
The Lebanese authorities continue to favour diplomatic channels. Joseph Aoun considers that a negotiated solution remains preferable to a new war, the consequences of which would be particularly severe for the people of the South. The Government of Nawaf Salam is also seeking to strengthen international support for Lebanese institutions and to prepare for the future of the international presence after UNIFIL. These steps are aimed at consolidating the authority of the State and allowing the return of the inhabitants to areas affected by military operations.
However, the negotiations will have to answer a specific question: Does Israel agree to withdraw its forces from Lebanese territories if new security guarantees are put in place? The advanced defence doctrine described by Tamir Hayman shows why this issue could become more difficult to resolve. It presents the military presence across borders as an instrument of security, not merely a temporary consequence of fighting. For Lebanon, the challenge will therefore be to obtain verifiable territorial commitments. Without effective withdrawal, military arrangements could reduce some tensions without ending the occupation.
Comments