BEIRUT, June 25 (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Senior officials from both Israel and Lebanon have explicitly denied claims that Israeli forces have withdrawn from any portion of the occupied buffer zone in southern Lebanon. These denials follow a statement from a United States State Department official suggesting that a pullback had occurred as a gesture of good faith.
The U.S. official claimed that Israel had retreated from a segment of the buffer zone to allow the Lebanese Armed Forces to move into the area. According to this narrative, the goal was to enable the Lebanese military to verifiably dismantle remaining Hezbollah weapons and infrastructure. The U.S. characterized the alleged move as a significant step toward restoring full Lebanese sovereignty and facilitating the return of displaced families to the region.
Contradicting the U.S. Narrative
The assertion of a withdrawal was swiftly dismissed by both nations involved in the conflict. A senior Israeli defense official stated that military policy remains unchanged and that no forces have been ordered to withdraw from the established buffer zone. Furthermore, Israeli military statements confirmed that there have been no shifts in the positioning of soldiers currently occupying the area, which extends approximately 10 kilometers into Lebanese territory.
An Israeli military official clarified the current stance during the ongoing discussions, stating:
“We will not allow the Lebanese army to go south from the security line.”
Lebanese military officials also disputed the American account, describing the situation on the ground as inconsistent with any form of retreat. A senior official stated that recent military activities in the sector indicate the opposite of a pullback. According to this source, Israeli forces continue to strictly enforce the boundary and prevent anyone, including members of the Lebanese army, from approaching or crossing the security line.
Diplomatic Frameworks for Pilot Zone
The conflicting reports emerged during U.S.-mediated diplomatic negotiations in Washington. These talks are centered on a proposal for a pilot zone, intended as a phased process to transfer specific areas currently under Israeli occupation to the control of the Lebanese military. While the proposal aims to create a framework for restoring order in the south, significant disagreements remain regarding the logistics and scope of the plan.
Disputes have surfaced over the implementation mechanism for these transfers. The Lebanese government has pushed for the pilot program to be initiated within the existing Israeli buffer zone. Conversely, Israel has maintained that any potential handover should begin in areas north of the current zone. Additionally, Israel has insisted on negotiating the status of each plot of land individually rather than agreeing to a fixed, comprehensive timeline for withdrawal.
The Gaza Template Controversy
A major point of contention within these negotiations is Israel’s insistence on the adoption of what is referred to as the Gaza template. Under this framework, Israel demands the right to conduct immediate military strikes or cross-border incursions into southern Lebanon at any time without prior notice if security threats or attempts to rebuild infrastructure are detected.
Lebanese authorities have strongly rejected this condition, viewing it as a direct and permanent violation of national sovereignty. This disagreement continues to serve as a substantial roadblock to reaching a lasting ceasefire agreement. While the U.S. continues to facilitate the dialogue, the gap between the stated diplomatic goals and the reality of the military positioning on the ground remains wide.
