It is a promise Israelis have heard often as the IDF withdrew from territory in the past: If one bullet or one rocket is fired, the IDF will respond with full force and have full international legitimacy to do so.
Then-prime minister Ehud Barak and his ministers said as much when Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon in 2000, and then-prime minister Ariel Sharon and his ministers said the same when he pulled Israel out of Gaza in 2005.
But in each instance, Israel did not respond.
Hezbollah kidnapped three soldiers on October 7, 2000, less than four months after Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon, but the pledged full-force response did not come. Hamas began firing rockets at Israel within weeks of the Gaza withdrawal, yet the full might of Israel’s army was not unleashed against the terrorist organization.
Those pledges proved little more than empty words, and the failure to uphold those pledges led to disastrous consequences: the Second Lebanon War and Hezbollah’s monstrous buildup in Lebanon; Hamas’s Gaza takeover and, ultimately, the October 7 massacre.
In the run-up to the ceasefire with Lebanon that went into effect Wednesday morning, government officials have been repeating the same mantra: Any violation and Israel will act firmly and with overwhelming might.
But will it?
The ceasefire agreement was less than five hours old when there were already tests of Israel’s resolve Wednesday: A vehicle carrying individuals Defense Minister Israel Katz identified as Hezbollah terrorists entered Kafr Kila, directly across from Metulla. The IDF fired warning shots to chase them away.
In another incident, individuals were seen near an Israeli tank in another southern Lebanon village, and videos appeared online of people returning to villages in the south, contrary to the agreement, which precludes this at the moment.
Testing Israel’s resolve
All of this is a test of Israel’s resolve. If this ceasefire is to succeed, Israel needs to make the ground rules clear from the very start: Unlike in the past, it will not tolerate violations, even small ones, but will immediately take decisive action.
As former head of the National Security Council Yaakov Amidror said on Wednesday, the incidents immediately after the ceasefire took effect at 4 a.m. were “not a good start.”
“The IDF should not have fired warning shots but rather shots intended to kill,” he said, adding that the true test will come when a convoy of weapons or Hezbollah operatives enters southern Lebanon. “If we do not address this, we will fail. We must not ignore any minor violation. We must not concede anything, especially at the beginning.”
Why not? Because – as recent history makes clear – the beginning sets the tone for what will come next. If Israel acts in a determined way to show that this time it is serious and willing to act against any violation, then perhaps this time the deal can work.
But if, as in the past, the government decides not to act against clear violations of agreements, the enemy will see there is no price for not honoring the agreement and act accordingly.
Following the incident in Kafr Kila, Katz issued a statement instructing the IDF to act “decisively and uncompromisingly against such occurrences. Any identified Hezbollah member approaching restricted areas should be arrested, and if they pose a threat to IDF forces, they should be hit.”
Resolutely implementing the agreement serves another function: It may convince residents of the northern communities, many of whom have expressed disappointment with the deal and are hesitant to return to their homes, that the IDF is determined to protect them.
If they are unconvinced of this, if they see that Hezbollah – in the guise of innocent civilians – is returning to the border, they may deem it unsafe to return. Acting forcefully from the very beginning sends a message not only to the enemy but also to Israelis debating whether to go back to homes they fled under Hezbollah fire and fear of an invasion nearly 14 months ago.
This ceasefire agreement could usher in a new period in the North and for Lebanon, but only if the agreement is honored, and only if Israel takes consequential action if it is not. The time to take that consequential action has already begun.
