Israel’s Targeting of Lebanese Army: ‘Military Error’ or Message to Stay Away from Border?

Lebanese soldiers are seen in the town of Baaloul in the western Bekaa after a strike in the area. (Reuters)
Lebanese soldiers are seen in the town of Baaloul in the western Bekaa after a strike in the area. (Reuters)
TT
20

Israel’s Targeting of Lebanese Army: ‘Military Error’ or Message to Stay Away from Border?

Lebanese soldiers are seen in the town of Baaloul in the western Bekaa after a strike in the area. (Reuters)
Lebanese soldiers are seen in the town of Baaloul in the western Bekaa after a strike in the area. (Reuters)

Israel’s targeting of Lebanese soldiers and their vehicles has raised questions about its attacks, especially amid discussions about the role the Lebanese army will play after the end of the war with Hezbollah.

Twenty-five Lebanese soldiers have been killed since Hezbollah opened its “support front” for its ally Hamas in Gaza on October 8, 2023. The soldiers were killed while on duty, either in a direct hit or as a result of nearby Israeli attack.

The latest casualties were reported on Sunday. Three soldiers were killed when Israel directly struck their vehicle in the Ain Ebel region.

The Israeli military issued an apology on Monday, saying it did not know that the vehicle it was targeting belonged to the army.

Israel said it struck a truck on Sunday that had entered an area where it had previously targeted a Hezbollah truck transporting a launcher and missiles. It said its soldiers were not aware that the second truck belonged to the Lebanese army.

It added that it is “not operating against the Lebanese Army and apologizes for these unwanted circumstances.”

Around ten days ago, Israel also targeted a Lebanese army position in the Kafra region in the South, leaving two soldiers dead. It again said it did not know that Lebanese troops were stationed in the area.

The Israeli statements do not clear it of the responsibility of killing the soldiers, especially when Israel is already crossing all red lines, a military source told Asharq Al-Awsat.

The repeated attacks against the Lebanese army “could be a message from Israel to limit its movement and deployment of its forces at the southern border.” This is a similar tactic Israel is using with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Israel wants to establish a buffer zone in the South and is adopting a scorched-earth policy. Nothing can stand in its way and it sees no red lines to stop it from pursuing its goal, added the source.

Some 4,500 soldiers are deployed in the South to primarily monitor the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1701 and the violations against it.

The soldiers moved back between 3 to 4 kms when Israel escalated its attacks against Hezbollah earlier this month, said the source.

Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati had declared earlier this month that he had tasked Army Commander Joseph Aoun with “doing what he sees fit to protect Lebanon and its military institution given the Israeli assault on Lebanon.”

Retired General Walid Aoun said: “There doesn’t seem to be any clear decision by Israel to attack the Lebanese army.”

In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, he noted that during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, the former struck an army barracks in the al-Jomhour region after claiming that it suspected it be a rocket base. Over 20 soldiers were killed in the attack.

“Israel is determined to achieve its goals and so it will not take into account other factors. So, if the army happens to be deployed near its targets, it will not hesitate in making the strike, regardless of the consequences,” he explained.

However, he expressed his concern over the negative impact the strikes will have on the army should they continue, seeing as the military will have a main role to play in the implementation of resolution 1701 in the South when the conflict is over.

Moreover, he explained that the role of the army is stipulated by the political powers and government. They task it with its duties. “As of yet, the army has not been tasked with confronting the enemy,” Aoun remarked.



Sidelined by Trump, Macron Tries to Rally Europe on Ukraine. But Divisions Run Deep

French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz before an informal summit of European leaders to discuss the situation in Ukraine and European security at the Élysée Presidential Palace in Paris on February 17, 2025. (AFP)
French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz before an informal summit of European leaders to discuss the situation in Ukraine and European security at the Élysée Presidential Palace in Paris on February 17, 2025. (AFP)
TT
20

Sidelined by Trump, Macron Tries to Rally Europe on Ukraine. But Divisions Run Deep

French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz before an informal summit of European leaders to discuss the situation in Ukraine and European security at the Élysée Presidential Palace in Paris on February 17, 2025. (AFP)
French President Emmanuel Macron welcomes Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz before an informal summit of European leaders to discuss the situation in Ukraine and European security at the Élysée Presidential Palace in Paris on February 17, 2025. (AFP)

French President Emmanuel Macron painted a veneer of European unity by inviting a small number of handpicked European leaders to the Élysée Palace, while the Trump administration sidelined the continent by moving ahead with direct negotiations on Tuesday with Russia on the war in Ukraine. But beneath the diplomatic pageantry, cracks in European consensus were hard to ignore.

One question loomed: Could Europe take charge of its own security, or would it remain reactive to US and Russian decisions?

From Macron’s push for European-led defense to Keir Starmer’s “third way” diplomacy, Giorgia Meloni’s balancing act between Brussels and Washington, and Olaf Scholz’s resistance to breaking with NATO, Europe remains divided on its next move.

France – Macron seeks to take the lead

By hosting the Monday summit in his Parisian palace, Macron reinforced his image of the imperial French “Sun King” and his bid to become the dominant voice on Ukraine and European security. With Germany’s Scholz politically weakened, the UK outside the EU, and Italy leaning toward Trump, Macron has emerged as the bloc’s most vocal advocate for strategic autonomy.

With a presidential mandate until 2027 and France’s nuclear arsenal making it Europe’s only atomic power, Macron has positioned himself as the only leader with both the ambition and authority to act. His proposal for a European-led security force in Ukraine, even in a limited training and logistics role, fits into his broader push for a continent less dependent on Washington.

But forging consensus is proving difficult: Germany is resisting, key frontline EU nations were left out of the summit, and Trump’s unpredictability clouds Europe’s security outlook.

“Since his first term, Macron has sought to impose himself as Europe’s strongman,” said French political analyst Jean-Yves Camus. “He has always presented himself as the natural leader of liberals against nationalist populists. One cannot say that this has worked well.”

While Macron is setting the stage, the question remains: Is Europe ready to follow?

United Kingdom – Starmer’s ‘third way’ strategy

Keir Starmer is charting a different course, positioning himself as Europe’s key link to Washington — while maintaining a firm pro-Ukraine stance.

Having met Trump before the election —“I like him a lot,” the US president said — the British prime minister is set to travel to Washington next week in what some see as an effort to bridge the US-Europe divide, and a hallmark of the “special relationship.”

While Trump moves toward de-escalation in Ukraine, Starmer is doubling down on support for Kyiv, stating the UK is “ready and willing” to send British troops if necessary. This stance stands in contrast to Macron and Scholz’s more cautious approach.

Starmer’s surprising decision not to sign a key international declaration on the future of AI last week — aligning with the US rather than the EU — has raised questions about whether Britain is shifting closer to Washington on broader geopolitical issues.

“The UK is unique in that it’s practically the only major ally that Trump hasn’t purposefully antagonized since his inauguration,” said Anand Sundar, a special advisor at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The Starmer government is doing everything it can to not put a target on its back.”

Some analysts suggest Starmer is positioning himself as Trump’s European “whisperer,” able to influence the White House while staying in step with Europe.

Italy – Meloni’s balancing act

Giorgia Meloni, the only leader of a major European economy to attend Trump’s inauguration in January, arrived late to the Paris summit and left without making a public statement - moves observers saw as signs of skepticism toward the meeting.

According to Italian news agency ANSA, Meloni questioned why the summit was held in Paris rather than Brussels, the EU’s natural decision-making hub, and criticized the exclusion of frontline states such as the Baltic nations, Sweden, and Finland.

At the summit, she pushed back against deploying European troops to Ukraine, calling it “the most complex and least effective option” - especially without firm security guarantees for Kyiv.

Observers noted that Meloni echoed some of US Vice President JD Vance’s criticism of Europe’s reliance on US protection. “We shouldn’t be asking what the Americans can do for us, but what we must do for ourselves,” she said, according to ANSA.

Despite her skepticism, Meloni still engaged in the talks, bringing Italy’s concerns over long-term European military commitments to the table.

Hungary – Orban’s absence

Notably absent from the Paris talks was Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close Trump ally and frequent critic of EU policies.

While no official reason was given for his exclusion, some observers saw it as a pointed message from Paris and its European allies about the limits of engagement with leaders seen as too closely aligned with Trump’s worldview.

Germany – Scholz’s irritation

If Macron is stepping forward, Scholz is pushing back.

At the summit, the German Chancellor rejected Macron’s proposal for a European-led security force in Ukraine, calling it “completely premature” and “highly inappropriate” given the ongoing war.

Scholz didn’t hide his frustration, saying he was “a little irritated” that peacekeeping forces were even being discussed “at the wrong time.” He insisted NATO—not an independent European force—must remain the foundation of security.

Due to its historical legacy from the world wars, some argue that Germany has always been willing to cede European security leadership to France, a role the French have pursued since President Charle de Gaulle.

At the same time, the debate over military spending is intensifying, as NATO officials stress the alliance’s 2% GDP target is now a baseline rather than a cap.