Recent outcomes of the negotiation round hosted by Washington have brought forth the concept of 'experimental' or 'model' zones as a practical mechanism to reshape the security reality in South Lebanon. This approach aims to transition from a fragile ceasefire to more sustainable security arrangements that ensure the long-term stability of the Lebanese-Israeli border.
According to joint understandings, it was decided to expedite the establishment of these zones to be under the exclusive and full control of the Lebanese Armed Forces, while preventing any armed presence outside the framework of the state. This experiment is scheduled to begin in a limited number of southern towns to assess its success before expanding its generalization to wider geographical areas in later stages.
The core idea of this proposal is a gradual withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from specific locations, met by an immediate and comprehensive deployment of the Lebanese Army to ensure that no armed factions return. This measure is considered a phased test for the implementation of the provisions of international Resolution 1701, rather than moving towards a comprehensive and immediate application that may face complex field obstacles.
In the context of site identification, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun revealed that the Lebanese proposal included starting with the towns of Eastern and Western Zawtar, Yahmar, and Qalaat al-Shaqif, given their strategic location and proximity to the city of Nabatieh. Despite the geographical clarity of the proposal, it has raised a wave of questions and concerns within Lebanese political circles about the sovereign implications of this step.
Observers and analysts believe that adopting a gradual evaluation model may give the Israeli occupation a pretext to link its comprehensive withdrawal to unguaranteed field results, which could prolong the stay of its forces in some sensitive border points. This concern stems from the possibility of the 'test' turning into an open-ended timeline that subjects Lebanese sovereignty to the assessments of external parties.
For his part, political researcher Mohammed Alloush warned of the danger of the Lebanese Army becoming an 'executive body' for security tasks that serve international agendas, considering that subjecting the army's performance to American and Israeli evaluation undermines the independence of military decision-making. Alloush pointed out that Israel might try to push the army to carry out tasks that it failed to achieve on the ground in villages that witnessed fierce confrontations in recent months.
These developments coincide with the monitoring of field movements and Israeli withdrawals from the areas of Debbine and Blat, which opens the door to questions about whether these steps are the actual beginning of the implementation of the experimental zones model. Between the international vision that considers it a means of building trust, and local fears of its repercussions, South Lebanon faces a new phase of conflict management based on gradual field implementation.
The proposed mechanism makes the performance of the Lebanese Army subject to American-Israeli evaluation, and the military institution may turn into an executive body for externally defined security tasks.
שתף את דעתך
'Experimental Zones' Plan in South Lebanon: A Test for Army Sovereignty and Fears of Prolonging Occupation