Avi Ashkenazi was a deputy battalion commander in Israel’s 1982 war in Lebanon, fighting with his tank unit. When his commander was killed in action, Mr. Ashkenazi took over.
That was when Israel, to push the Palestine Liberation Organization away from its northern border and halt years of PLO attacks on its northern residents, sent its forces all the way to Beirut.
The war against Syrian army forces then occupying Lebanon and Palestinian guerrilla fighters enjoying Syria’s protection lasted just three months, ending with the evacuation of the PLO leadership from Lebanon, at the cost to Israel of some 370 soldiers’ lives.
Why We Wrote This
Unaffected so far by the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, the battle to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon has been shaping up to be a main focus of Israelis, renewing the debate: Can military force alone deliver lasting security, or does the absence of a clear political strategy risk costly and open-ended conflict?
But Israel stayed for another 18 years, pulling back in 1985 to a security zone it established in the south. During that time, the Shiite Lebanese militia Hezbollah emerged, and another 700 Israeli soldiers were killed. Under intense domestic pressure over the mounting casualties, Israel finally withdrew in 2000.
Now, as Israel once again sends forces into Lebanon to battle Iran-allied Hezbollah – and politicians discuss establishing a new security zone – Mr. Ashkenazi has a sense of déjà vu.
His nephew is fighting in Lebanon, and when they met briefly last week during a short visit home, they compared experiences.
“He told me they were in Yohmor,” a village some 5 kilometers (about 3 miles) from the Israeli border near the Litani River, Mr. Ashkenazi says by phone. “What is sad is that 44 years ago, I was in the same village.”
The limits of force
Even as Iranian missiles fell on Israel before the ceasefire, the renewed battle against Hezbollah was shaping up to be a main focus of Israelis and was generating debate: Can military force in Lebanon deliver Israelis lasting security, or, as past experience suggests, does the absence of a clear political strategy risk drawing Israel back into a costly and open-ended conflict, in what many call the “Lebanese quagmire”?
Indeed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that while he supports U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to suspend strikes against Iran to allow for negotiations, the “two-weeks ceasefire does not include Lebanon.” The army said Wednesday it carried out the largest offensive against Hezbollah infrastructure since the start of the war, targeting command centers and military sites in Beirut, the Beqaa Valley, and southern Lebanon. Beirut said 112 people were killed.
“The lessons we learned then have not been implemented,” Mr. Ashkenazi says of the 1982 war and its aftermath. “We think that if we use force and more force, we will succeed, but in fact, force has not solved us any problems anywhere. What is needed is … an agreement.”
In late 2024, after a punishing Israeli offensive capped more than a year of intensifying fighting with Hezbollah, Israel and Lebanon reached a ceasefire agreement, under which the Beirut government pledged to disarm Hezbollah. Since then, Israel has continued near-daily strikes on Hezbollah targets.
In March, after a weakened but defiant Hezbollah fired missiles and drones at Israel following the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Israel responded with waves of airstrikes, followed by a ground incursion into southern Lebanon. The stated aim: to remove the threat to northern communities in Israel, where tens of thousands of residents had only recently returned home after evacuation during the war in Gaza, which Hezbollah joined in solidarity with Hamas.
The army “is completing the ground maneuver … in order to protect and prevent a direct threat to Israeli border communities,” Defense Minister Israel Katz said April 3, adding that disarming Hezbollah remains a “top objective.”
Homes in Lebanese border villages used as Hezbollah outposts would be destroyed, he said, and Israel would maintain security control south of the Litani River. He also said the 600,000 Lebanese residents displaced from the south would not be allowed to return until northern Israeli communities were secure.
Yet the same day, a senior Israeli military official said fully disarming Hezbollah would be unrealistic without occupying all of Lebanon – something not under consideration.
Need for diplomacy
“The battle against Hezbollah has been going on for decades, and we’re in a better position today because they were greatly weakened a year and a half ago,” says Chuck Freilich, a former deputy national security adviser and a professor of political science at Tel Aviv University and Columbia University.
Israel’s strategy, he says, is to push Hezbollah roughly 10 kilometers from the border, beyond the range of anti-tank missiles.
The next step, he argues, should be diplomatic: working with Lebanon’s government and international forces to disarm Hezbollah. These steps would require Israeli concessions, including a withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon.
This, he says, is “a more winning strategy, instead of just trying to endlessly hit targets that they rebuild afterwards.”
Ronen Zvulun/Reuters
Maintaining a permanent security zone on Lebanese soil, as some political leaders have been calling for, he warns, risks repeating past mistakes. Instead, Israel should operate from its own territory, carrying out targeted incursions when necessary.
Meanwhile, the cost of the new incursion is rising. Twelve Israeli soldiers have been killed as of Wednesday, as troops move from village to village dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure. Air support has been limited, with many pilots engaged on the Iran front.
Some soldiers are also entering combat with reduced training. Ayelet Hashahar Saydoff, an attorney and founder of the movement Mothers at the Front, says training has been shortened by several months.
“Our husbands and our fathers also were in Lebanon,” she says. “Two years ago, our children were already in Lebanon, and we paid a price. It does not make sense that this has not brought us quiet. … This means that those who are managing this war are managing it badly.”
At this point, she says, there is “zero, zero” tolerance for the loss of Israeli soldiers’ lives, especially as there is no faith in the government or Prime Minister Netanyahu, who in 2024 said Hezbollah had been set back “decades.”
Low trust in government
A recent poll by the Institute of National Security Studies shows trust in the government remains low. Of those polled, 68% reported low confidence in the government, 46% said they believe Hezbollah can be disarmed, and 43% said they do not.
After four soldiers from a reconnaissance unit were killed at the end of March, parents sent a letter to Mr. Netanyahu criticizing the “extremely unreasonable” conditions they were operating in.
“Exploiting the dedication of our children, young people who have already been fighting for three years (!!) in a tremendous war on all fronts, is a serious act of injustice that is unacceptable,” they wrote.
Gary Cohen, a writer and filmmaker who immigrated from Scotland and served as a paratrooper in the 1982 war, recalls landing deep inside Lebanon and fighting to Beirut. Friends were later killed during Israel’s years in the security zone.
“We paid a heavy price,” he says.
Emilio Morenatti/AP
Lebanon, he says, is one of the most beautiful places he’s ever been to.
“I thought that one day, I would bring my children on holiday and show them where we fought,” he says. “That was obviously a pipe dream, and it looks like my grandchildren will also fight in Lebanon.”
“I would be a lot happier with what we’re doing if I trusted the government,” he adds. “This government is very good at starting wars. It’s got no idea, or maybe no inclination, to finish.”
Demand to “finish the job”
At the same time, many residents of Israel’s north are demanding decisive action to “finish the job” in Lebanon.
“We were told that Hezbollah was weakened in a very significant way, and we’re going to have at least a few years of quiet,” says Liat Cohen Rabib, who has lived on the border in Metula for 30 years. “And that backfired on everyone.”
She recalls sitting in shelters as a child during the 1982 war. Today, her husband and two daughters are serving on reserve duty, while her son and nephew are fighting in Lebanon.
Repeated cycles of conflict, she says, are not sustainable. Hezbollah’s long-range missiles now threaten all of Israel, not just the north, and everyone in Israel “has an interest to solve this once and for all.”
Yet a solution should begin with policy – working with Lebanon’s government, setting clear goals and timelines – before relying on force, Ms. Rabib says. A renewed security zone, she warns, would turn Israeli soldiers into “a living fence.”
Ofer Shelah, a former member of parliament from a centrist party, and now director of a national security program at the Institute of National Security Studies, says a security zone would again create favorable conditions for guerrilla warfare and would not stop rocket fire.
But an election year, he notes, creates its own logic.
“Look at the political interests, both of the government and the military,” he says. “That will dictate a lot of what’s going to happen, much more than … very sound reasoning.”