Jad El Dilati is a governance and human rights practitioner focused on Lebanon and the MENA region. He is currently a Bassem Sabry Democracy Fellow at The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy and the manager of the MENA and Syria programs at Minority Rights Group. His work focuses on civic space, accountability, minority rights, and governance across the region. His writing has covered conflict, governance, and the lived experiences of marginalized communities in Lebanon, with a focus on South Lebanon. Instagram: @jdilati
The current reality in the area along the Lebanese-Israeli border is bleak, but not unfamiliar. Entire villages south of the Litani River in southern Lebanon, such as Kfarkela, Aadaysi, Marwahin and Khiyam stand empty and deserted, with homes reduced to rubble through controlled demolition operations. Israel has severed the region from the country, with some areas effectively placed under direct Israeli military control. In parallel, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Defense Minister Israel Katz have called for extending Israel's presence 20 miles into sovereign Lebanese territory. Today, even with a ceasefire supposedly reached between Beirut and Tel Aviv, more questions than answers face the Lebanese people.
For families like mine, rooted in South Lebanon for generations, we know this reality and its consequences far too well. Israel's stated objective to dismantle Hezbollah's military capacity and establish a security zone in the south will not succeed. The history of Israel's incursions in South Lebanon highlight that the prior annexation of the country's sovereign territory only prolonged civilian displacement, territorial reconfiguration and permanent instability across the Lebanese-Israeli frontier. Just like the U.S. National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense and Vice President in the Reagan Administration opposed the Israeli invasion and annexation in 1982, the Trump administration should oppose them today.
The forced, permanent and reportedly discriminatory displacement of Lebanese land will overwhelm the country in ways that will be difficult to manage and predict beyond the fighting.
- Jad El Dilati
Israel occupied South Lebanon for 18 years, from 1982 to 2000, and ironically left the area having strengthened the very armed group it sought to destroy. Hezbollah was born in the crucible of that occupation and emerged from it as a dominant military and political power, gaining broader regional legitimacy in the process.
A second occupation, conducted with greater firepower and deeper destruction, will not produce a different result. Instead, it will foster a generation of young Lebanese civilians with greater grievances, which may only justify Hezbollah's continued military existence. In a region with longer memories than any military campaign has accounted for previously, the security logic is self-defeating.
For Lebanon, Israeli annexation of this part of the country would be equally catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of people call the area under threat of Israeli military occupation home. The forced, permanent and reportedly discriminatory displacement of Lebanese land will overwhelm the country in ways that will be difficult to manage and predict beyond the fighting. Already, Israel has forcibly displaced more than 1.3 million people from their homes since the war came to Lebanon on March 2, a staggering level of deprivation in an already troubled country and region.
Having been in economic freefall since 2019, Lebanon lacks the adequate capacity and institutions to manage this scale of prolonged displacement, which has created and will worsen the shelter crisis, infrastructure strain, permanent job loss and escalating poverty. Additionally, South Lebanon will remain volatile as long as Israel violates the country's territorial integrity.
Indeed, the rest of the country will not move forward while the south remains unstable. This instability will spread across the nation as sectarian friction grows between host communities — typically Christian or Sunni — and internally displaced Shia populations.
For Washington, the costs of a permanent Israeli occupation in Lebanon should concern anyone desiring true peace in the Middle East. This administration has invested significantly in Lebanon's current government and, since 2006, the United States has mobilized $3 billion for the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) on the basis that a functioning, sovereign Lebanese state and military can challenge Hezbollah's dominance over large parts of the country. That bet is increasingly lost with every act of demolition, every hospital strike, every destroyed bridge, every poisoned field and every new military base established in South Lebanon by Israel. These conditions create a situation where the Lebanese government's attempt to re-establish control over the southern territories to reclaim legitimacy will fail.
We, the people of South Lebanon, have lived this story before. We know how it ends.
- Jad El Dilati
The Lebanese government cannot "re-establish control" over an area occupied by a foreign army. It also cannot restore trust by merely reclaiming its role as the sole service provider, especially under such conditions. Regardless, restoring services in the south will not be possible if Israeli forces continue demolishing civilian infrastructure across the energy, water and telecommunications sector while displacing the residents who should be benefiting from them.
In parallel, the LAF cannot act as the only legitimate army and deploy in South Lebanon if another foreign army — one led by a country as unpopular nationally and regionally as Israel — prevents them from fulfilling their duties. This will weaken the Lebanese government's goal of reclaiming sovereignty. Rather, the Lebanese government, already struggling with trust within the Shia community, will lose all remaining credibility and become a failed governance experiment. Worse, the sectarian dynamics underpinning the war would risk a civil conflict.
Now more than ever, the United States has a role to play in Lebanon, but only if it is positive and considers local dynamics. It includes putting American pressure on Israel to immediately halt its invasion and withdraw from the lands it occupies in Lebanon. It also includes engaging with the Lebanese government as a sovereign actor, which is a common goal for all sides, instead of treating it as a bystander, a proxy or ignoring it altogether.
If the United States fails to act, the alternative will be a new period of occupation, polarization and instability. Washington took a step in the wrong direction on April 14 when it failed to address Israel's blatant violations of Lebanese territorial integrity during talks held between Lebanon and Israel at the State Department, which produced the ceasefire agreement. That agreement appears to leave the door open for Israel to continue strikes against Hezbollah and does not allow forcibly displaced Lebanese from the South and Nabatieh Governorates — the total population of both governorates being around 1 million people — that constitutes much of the Israeli evacuation zone from returning. For these negotiations to yield any breakthrough, this elephant in the room must be confronted.
We, the people of South Lebanon, have lived this story before. We know how it ends. This time can be different, but it requires mutual respect and a good faith effort to see Lebanon and Lebanese thriving — not suffering.
The views and positions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of DAWN.
