The announcement of a possible cease-fire in Lebanon increased in scope on Thursday 16 April at the end of the day, following information attributed to the Israeli dailyHaaretzAccording to which the Israeli army ordered its forces to prepare for the entry into force of a truce in the evening after 7 p.m. This sequence immediately caught attention in Beirut and Jerusalem, while the fighting did not stop on the ground, Israeli strikes continued in several parts of the South and the Bekaa, and a diplomatic appeal for a time presented as a direct exchange between Joseph Aoun and Benyamin Netanyahu eventually left room for a confirmed conversation between the Lebanese President and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The Haaretz alert revives the hypothesis of a truce
A few hours earlier, several converging signals had already fueled the idea of a near truce. Israeli officials had confirmed that the security cabinet had met on Wednesday night to discuss the possibility of a ceasefire in Lebanon. At the same time, Washington was continuing its efforts to expand contacts between the two sides. But in Beirut, the Lebanese government has maintained an unchanged line: no shift towards direct high-level political contact with Israel without prior cessation of hostilities.
The new element of the day is therefore this announcement given toHaaretz. In a crisis where military and diplomatic signals overlap, an instruction given to forces on the ground is not in itself a public confirmation of a definitive agreement. However, it indicates that a truce hypothesis has been sufficiently serious to be translated into operational instructions. At this stage, no official Israeli communiqué has been issued detailing the modalities for the possible entry into force after 7 p.m., nor the duration, perimeter or monitoring mechanism of such a ceasefire.
The Aoun-Netanyahu call did not take place
On the diplomatic front, the day was marked by a strong confusion around a call that, according to several statements outside Lebanon, should bring together Joseph Aoun and Benyamin Netanyahu. Donald Trump had said that the Israeli and Lebanese leaders should speak to each other on Thursday. In Israel, Minister Gila Gamliel had also announced an imminent exchange between the two men. But in Beirut, several Lebanese officials quickly denied this scenario.
The Lebanese presidency did not confirm a meeting between Joseph Aoun and the Israeli Prime Minister. The exchange actually attested Thursday is a call between Joseph Aoun and Marco Rubio. According to the Presidency, the Lebanese Head of State thanked the US Secretary of State for Washington’s efforts to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon. The point is central to the political reading of the day: what was presented as a historical direct conversation between Beirut and Tel Aviv did not materialize publicly. The confirmed channel was the American channel.
Joseph Aoun also reaffirmed the Lebanese position. A ceasefire must precede direct negotiations. The Lebanese President presented this truce as the natural entry point for further discussions, while believing that the Israeli withdrawal would be an essential step in consolidating the cessation of fighting and allowing the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south. This line has been repeated as Washington has been trying for several days to push both sides towards a de-escalation formula.
On Tuesday, the ambassadors of Israel and Lebanon met in Washington in a rare setting, under American mediation. On Wednesday evening, the Israeli security cabinet discussed a possible ceasefire, according to Israeli officials. Thursday, the information attributed toHaaretzon the preparation of Israeli forces for a truce after 7 p.m. gave a more concrete turn to this sequence. However, at a time when this perspective was circulating, Israeli military operations were continuing in several Lebanese areas and the exchanges of fire had not stopped on either side of the border.
Israeli strikes continue on several fronts
It is this gap between diplomatic dynamics and military reality that dominates the day. According to Reuters, fighting continued in southern Lebanon, particularly around Bint Jbeil, a border town that Benyamin Netanyahu presented on Wednesday as a major military objective. The Israeli Prime Minister claimed that the army was about to overcome what he described as a stronghold of Hezbollah. At the same time, Lebanese officials believed that Israel was seeking to gain an advantage in Bint Jbeil before any political developments.
On the ground, the dispatches of the Lebanese National Information Agency describe a day of dispersed strikes, bombing and targeted destruction in several areas. The agency reported on Thursday severe damage to the government hospital in Tebnine, affected by nearby strikes. The same dispatch reported the death of a civilian and strikes on large areas of the South and the Bekaa. In another report published by the Agency, four rescue workers were killed during a rescue mission in Mayfadoun, after being targeted by a drone strike, while artillery fire was directed at Zebdine and Harouf.
According to the National Information Agency, Israeli raids targeted several southern localities in the night and morning. A strike hit the Wadi Shbeil area in Qatrani, causing a power cut in Qatrani and Sriré. Three raids also targeted Kafra, Haris and Toulin. In Nabatiyah, the agency reported a drone strike on an open area in the religious district, as well as a night strike on a house in Roumine. In Tyre, an attack hit Qlaile. In Marjeyoun, a second strike on Debbine caused a power cut in the area.
Lebanese dispatches also mention strikes beyond the border south alone. In the West Bekaa, two dawn raids targeted Sohmor, causing significant damage to homes. In the district of Tyre, the National Information Agency also reported that Israeli forces had detonated the Marwahin High School building. It also reported the renewal of an Israeli warning to the inhabitants south of the Zahrani River. These elements do not draw a lull. On the contrary, they show that the assumption of a ceasefire has been circulating as the strikes continue to affect civilian infrastructure, housing, relief teams and electricity distribution networks.
Bint Jbeil, the Litani and the Southern Front
To the south of Litani, the situation remains particularly tense. Reuters reported on Thursday that an Israeli strike had destroyed the last bridge crossing the Litani towards the south, according to a Lebanese security source. The same source estimated that the destruction cut almost one tenth of Lebanon from the rest of the country, after the destruction of other crossing points during the war. At the same time, the Israeli army repeated its desire to ban the space south of the Litani from Hezbollah fighters. The day before, his Chief of Staff, Eyal Zamir, had declared that the entire area should become a closed space for movement.
At the military level, this Israeli orientation is accompanied by ground progression and constant pressure on the Bint Jbeil axis. News reports from the National News Agency on Wednesday were already reports of heavy artillery bombardments on Bint Jbeil and its environs, as well as ongoing fighting with Israeli forces. Other dispatches were still talking about violent clashes around Bint Jbeil and Yarun. On Thursday, Reuters confirmed that clashes continued in the area, while Hizbullah claimed further rocket attacks to the north of Israel.
In Israel, alarm sirens resounded on Thursday in several northern localities, according to Reuters and the Associated Press, after Hizbullah claimed fire. The Associated Press noted that exchanges of fire continued across the border while Israeli artillery and strikes intensified around Tyre, Nabatiyah and Bint Jbeil. This continuation of the fighting, at the very moment when a diplomatic window seemed to open, recalls the extreme fragility of any premature announcement of a truce.
US mediation remains central
The Lebanese case remains closely linked to American mediation. Washington did not publicly present agreed text, but the role played by Marco Rubio and the Washington-based contacts shows that the United States remains the central intermediary. On Thursday, according to Reuters, the Lebanese embassy in Washington had informed the US administration of Beirut’s position before the appeal between Joseph Aoun and Marco Rubio. This clarification illuminates the sequence: the Lebanese refusal of a direct call with Benyamin Netanyahu was communicated upstream, and the conversation of the day was held in a strictly American-Lebanese context.
The Lebanese message did not change. Beirut claims to be seeking a ceasefire before any political follow-up. That position had already been formulated in previous days, when Lebanon pleaded for a temporary truce opening the way for wider discussions. It was again expressed on Thursday by Joseph Aoun. This means that, in addition to the Israeli statements on possible direct negotiations, and beyond the American or Israeli announcements on a possible appeal between leaders, the Lebanese authorities continue to explicitly link any direct political contact to a prior cessation of military operations.
The very calendar of the day reinforces this impression of floating. On Wednesday, Benyamin Netanyahu claimed that the Israeli army was continuing its strikes against Hezbollah and that she was about to take over Bint Jbeil. On Wednesday night, his cabinet was examining the possibility of a ceasefire. On Thursday, the National Information Agency reported new strikes in the South and the Bekaa, as well as further destruction. And Thursday at the end of the day, the announcement attributed toHaaretzbrought out the idea of a truce after 7 p.m., without a full framework immediately being made public.
The human and material balance continues to grow. Reuters recalls that more than 2,100 people have been killed in Lebanon since 2 March and that more than 1.2 million people have been displaced, according to the Lebanese authorities. On the Israeli side, the authorities have reported deaths among civilians and soldiers since the resumption of the war. In addition to this, damage to bridges, power lines, hospitals, school buildings and homes reported by Lebanese dispatches is added. Even in the event of a announced truce, the extent of the destruction will immediately affect its practical application.
