The New York Times: The ceasefire agreement announced yesterday in Lebanon has already been violated
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said the Israeli military is launching artillery strikes in response to "Hezbollah" fighters approaching its positions. The day before, Katz had stated that during the ceasefire, Israel would continue its "clearance operations" across territory, including demolishing buildings in villages near the Israeli border.
Micro-commentary
This once again reveals the typical "ceasefire paradox" between Israel and Lebanon: both sides fundamentally interpret "ceasefire" differently.
From Israel's perspective, a ceasefire does not mean halting "defensive operations." If Hezbollah fighters approach Israeli positions, Israel retains the right to strike. Moreover, Israel explicitly defines the "demolition of border village structures" as a legitimate "clearance operation" during the ceasefire — which amounts to exploiting the ceasefire window to further weaken Hezbollah’s presence and deterrence capability along the border.
Although the report does not clarify the specific intent behind Hezbollah’s movement toward Israeli positions (whether reconnaissance, deployment, or provocation), appearing in sensitive areas immediately after the ceasefire took effect itself constitutes a test of the agreement’s spirit. Hezbollah may believe that the ceasefire implies that Israel must completely cease all military actions, including shelling.
This so-called "violation" more accurately reflects Israel’s unilateral definition of a "limited ceasefire" — one in which Israel reserves the right to fire when deemed necessary, while continuing pre-planned military engineering projects (such as demolishing villages). To Hezbollah, this "ceasefire while tearing down homes" is tantamount to ongoing aggression. Both sides refuse to recognize each other’s interpretation of ceasefire terms, rendering the so-called "ceasefire" inherently fragile from the outset.
This is entirely a tactical pause by Israel’s side. Israel seeks to leverage the ceasefire period to consolidate military advantages, while Hezbollah may use it to reposition forces. It is foreseeable that such "ceasefire equals violation" incidents will recur repeatedly as long as core demands remain unresolved — Israel insists Hezbollah withdraw north of the Litani River, while Hezbollah demands the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory.
The breakdown of the temporary ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon is not an accidental "violation," but an inevitable outcome given the agreement’s lack of mutual trust and clear enforcement mechanisms. Genuine ceasefire requires a political solution, not merely temporary military arrangements.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1862817479807232/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.