Israel Launches Largest Incursion into South Lebanon

Israeli soldiers attend the funeral of a soldier killed in the battles of South Lebanon. (EPA)
Israeli soldiers attend the funeral of a soldier killed in the battles of South Lebanon. (EPA)
TT
20

Israel Launches Largest Incursion into South Lebanon

Israeli soldiers attend the funeral of a soldier killed in the battles of South Lebanon. (EPA)
Israeli soldiers attend the funeral of a soldier killed in the battles of South Lebanon. (EPA)

The Israeli army launched its “largest incursion” into southern Lebanon on Thursday, advancing along three main axes.
On the western front, forces reached the outskirts of Shamaa, a town located about 4 kilometers from the border, where they engaged in clashes with Hezbollah.
This marked the first day of a ground operation whose scope and objectives remain undefined. The incursion was accompanied by widespread aerial bombardment targeting villages located 7 to 15 kilometers deep within Lebanese territory.
The Israeli army stated that forces from the 91st Division were expanding the scope of the ground operation into the outskirts of the second line of villages in South Lebanon, entering areas where Israeli forces had not previously accessed. During the operation, commandos from the division reportedly discovered a rocket-launch platform containing 32 launchers, along with weapons depots, various munitions, and underground tunnels.
Although the Israeli army did not specify the operation’s scale or location, sources in South Lebanon told Asharq Al-Awsat that Israel was conducting “its broadest incursion attempt across all sectors.”
The incursion reached the outskirts of the strategic town of Shama, which overlooks the city of Tyre. A Lebanese security source informed Asharq Al-Awsat that infiltration attempts began at dawn along the Dahira axis. This border town, heavily destroyed in recent weeks, was part of a path leading toward Wadi Hamoul and Shama.
Sources confirmed that Israeli forces reached Shama’s outskirts, where heavy clashes were ongoing.
On the western front, the Israeli army avoided crossing wooded areas and valleys, opting instead for exposed paths to minimize the risk of direct rocket attacks by Hezbollah fighters believed to be entrenched in those regions. This approach followed a shorter route from Dhaira through the outskirts of Teir Harfa toward Shama. Notably, Shama hosts one of the largest UNIFIL bases in southern Lebanon.
Local media reported fierce clashes involving machine guns, followed by Israeli artillery shelling of Teir Harfa with phosphorus and heavy artillery shells. Reports also emerged of an Israeli Merkava tank being destroyed while advancing in Wadi Al-Batishiya en route to Teir Harfa.
An Israeli helicopter was spotted evacuating injured soldiers from the incursion axis. By afternoon, Israeli forces had reportedly withdrawn from some incursion points back toward the border, while Hezbollah continued targeting military positions with rocket fire.
The Israeli army appears focused on reaching the highlands overlooking Wadi Al-Hujeir, believed to be a launching site for rockets targeting Israel. This strategy mirrors its geographic positioning in southern Lebanon before its withdrawal in 2000.
Local media reported attempts to penetrate along multiple axes, including Dahira–Alma Al-Shaab–Hamoul on the western front, and Naqoura–Teir Harfa in the same sector.
In the central sector, incursions targeted Yaron–Bint Jbeil, Ayta Al-Shaab–Bint Jbeil, and Ayta Al-Shaab–Ainata. In the eastern sector, Israeli forces attempted to advance through Al-Abbad–Houla and Wadi Hounin–Marjayoun.

Field sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that airstrikes resumed on border villages, suggesting that Hezbollah fighters had managed to re-enter areas previously seized by Israeli forces.
The renewed aerial bombardment targeted villages along the third and fourth defensive lines in a bid to disrupt the missile and artillery support aiding Hezbollah fighters on the ground.
The intense Israeli shelling and airstrikes extended 7 to 12 kilometers deep into Lebanese territory, hitting the outskirts of villages such as Zibqin, Majdal Zoun, Sheihin, Shaqra, Braachit, Tiri, Qabrikha, Al-Mansouri, and others. Dozens of villages were reportedly struck with heavy artillery and air raids.
The objectives, scale, and timeline of the Israeli military operation remain unclear. Israeli media reports indicate uncertainty about whether the incursion is aimed at establishing permanent military positions in South Lebanon, or simply destroying border villages in the second defensive line, as had been done with villages in the first line.
The lack of clarity stems from the Israeli withdrawal from first-line villages, which enabled Hezbollah to regain access to those areas.
While Yedioth Ahronoth reported that the military seeks to establish conditions for a post-war scenario in southern Lebanon—preventing armed Hezbollah presence south of the Litani River, particularly in the first and second defensive lines—other commentators argue that significant amounts of Hezbollah’s rocket stockpiles, which continue to target deep into Israel, are located in second-line villages. These areas are considered close enough to the border for Hezbollah to launch effective strikes on Israeli territory.

 

 



Lebanese Parties Warn Against Hezbollah Keeping Light Weapons

Lebanese Shiite mourners gathered on Monday in Beirut’s southern suburbs to mark Ashura in a ceremony organized by Hezbollah (AFP)
Lebanese Shiite mourners gathered on Monday in Beirut’s southern suburbs to mark Ashura in a ceremony organized by Hezbollah (AFP)
TT
20

Lebanese Parties Warn Against Hezbollah Keeping Light Weapons

Lebanese Shiite mourners gathered on Monday in Beirut’s southern suburbs to mark Ashura in a ceremony organized by Hezbollah (AFP)
Lebanese Shiite mourners gathered on Monday in Beirut’s southern suburbs to mark Ashura in a ceremony organized by Hezbollah (AFP)

A recent proposal circulating in Lebanon that would allow Hezbollah to retain its light weapons while surrendering heavy and medium arms has triggered widespread political backlash, with critics warning it poses a grave threat to state sovereignty and public safety.

The suggestion, floated amid long-running debate over the group’s arsenal, argues that other political parties and armed groups also possess light weapons for various reasons. But key political factions have rejected the idea outright, citing Lebanon’s bloody past and the potential for renewed violence.

Opponents of the proposal have pointed to the events of May 7, 2008, when Hezbollah fighters overran parts of Beirut and Mount Lebanon in a show of military force, underscoring the dangers of allowing any non-state group to keep arms.

“Classifying weapons as heavy, medium or light is useless,” said Kataeb Party leader Sami Gemayel in a post on X. “If heavy arms threaten Lebanon’s regional security, light weapons are even more dangerous to the foundations of the state.”

Gemayel reiterated that only the Lebanese army and legitimate security forces should bear arms, calling for the country to be entirely free of weapons held by non-state actors.

MP Ghada Ayoub, of the Lebanese Forces-led "Strong Republic" bloc, echoed that view, insisting the state must assert full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory and outlaw any form of armed presence outside the official security apparatus.

“There is only one armed group operating outside the state, and that is Hezbollah,” Ayoub told Asharq al-Awsat. “It must become a purely political party and clearly, unequivocally declare an end to its military activity.”

Ayoub also criticized recent remarks by Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, who vowed the group’s “resistance” would continue “without asking anyone’s permission.”

“The Lebanese state is responsible for enforcing a monopoly on the use of arms,” she said. “It must stop playing the role of a mediator or hiding behind the fear of war and internal strife. Time is not on Lebanon’s side.”

Ahmad Al-Kheir, a lawmaker with the “National Moderation” bloc, dismissed the proposal as “stillborn,” warning that light weapons have already been used to intimidate citizens and skew political dynamics.

“We saw yesterday how light arms were paraded through Beirut’s streets in a blatant attempt at provocation and coercion,” he said. “This is the real danger - using these weapons as leverage in political life, as we saw in the May 7 events and the occupation of downtown Beirut.”

“No one in Lebanon will accept this,” Al-Kheir added.

Additionally, critics warn that allowing any non-state entity to retain weapons threatens state authority and risks further destabilizing the country.

Al-Kheir urged Hezbollah and any other party in possession of light weapons to hand them over to the state, citing the recent example set by former Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) leader Walid Jumblatt.

“Jumblatt announced that his party had surrendered its weapons weeks ago. This is the model to follow,” he told Asharq al-Awsat.

MP Waddah Al-Sadek, of the Change Coalition, said he had no objection to a phased disarmament process that begins with heavy and medium weapons, followed by light arms. He dismissed fears of civil war, saying only one side is armed.

“Armed conflict requires two sides. The army will not engage in internal fighting,” he said. “This talk of civil war is just fear-mongering unless Hezbollah resorts again to something like the May 7 scenario to avoid disarming.”

Al-Sadek stressed that Lebanon’s response to the US proposal - reportedly outlining phased disarmament - will be critical. “Does anyone really have an alternative to engaging with this proposal?” he asked.

Deputy head of the Free Patriotic Movement, Naji Hayek, said all weapons must be handed over, rejecting the idea that civilians or political groups should be allowed to keep light arms for self-defense.

“This theory no longer holds,” Hayek told Asharq al-Awsat, adding that training camps used to militarize society should be shut down. “Light and medium weapons are not only with Hezbollah - they exist with other parties that have military structures, and these too must be dismantled.”

Political analyst Qassem Qassir, who is close to Hezbollah’s thinking, said there is no internal consensus, nor any agreement with Hezbollah, to give up its heavy and medium arms while retaining light weapons.

“The party insists the issue is still the Israeli occupation and ongoing aggression,” he said. “For Hezbollah, no discussion on disarmament is possible until those threats end.”

Qassir warned that if a political solution to the weapons issue is not reached, “we will inevitably face military risks and internal conflict.”

Jumblatt announced in late June that his party had handed over its remaining weapons, including light and medium arms that were gradually accumulated after the May 7 clashes in 2008 during a period of heightened tension with Hezbollah.

He said the weapons had been centrally stored and fully turned over to the Lebanese state.