Thousands of people killed. Thousands more wounded. A million displaced. Hundreds of villages entirely destroyed. This is Lebanon, caught in the crossfires of two different wars: U.S-Israel-Iran and Israel-Hezbollah. Now, even with a ceasefire in place, peace is fragile as people continue to suffer.
David Wood, Senior Analyst for Lebanon at International Crisis Group, joins Jen from Beirut, to tackle the ceasefire and wider conflict. As an analyst living in the country, Wood reveals the political pieces of the ceasefire puzzle, covering Hezbollah’s military capabilities, Israel’s war sustainability, Lebanon’s humanitarian crisis, and more. Tune in for expert insights from the ground and details you aren’t hearing everywhere.
David Wood is International Crisis Group’s Senior Analyst for Lebanon. He conducts research on and poses recommendations to address Lebanon’s ongoing economic, political and social crises. Previously, Wood was the managing editor at Triangle, a Beirut-based think tank advocating for progressive reform in the Middle East & North Africa region.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, Editor-in-Chief of The Contrarian. I’m delighted to welcome David Wood. He is a journalist, an analyst, he is affiliated with the International Crisis Group, and he is one of the leading analysts and commentators on Lebanon and the crisis there. Welcome, David, it’s nice to meet you.
David Wood
Thanks for having me, Jen.
Jen Rubin
What is currently going on in Lebanon? Is there a ceasefire in effect? And what’s the situation for people on the ground there?
David Wood
So, in terms of what’s going on in Lebanon, we know that, ultimately, even though there’s this temporary truce in place, that it is fragile at best, and already we have seen that the fighting has not stopped on the ground. Also, the truce only came about because U.S. President Donald Trump insisted on it, and effectively forced Israel to cease fire, or to at least reduce its fire. Israel only did this because the US President required it to do so, and… The truce remains fragile simply because the fundamental conflict is unresolved. Israel wants Hezbollah, its longtime adversary in Lebanon, which is backed by Iran, to fully disarm, and Hezbollah refuses to do so. And the Lebanese government simply doesn’t have the capacity to force Hezbollah to stand down or to surrender its weapons. So… even though this is a welcome respite from the conflict, which has been tearing Lebanon apart for weeks now, it’s very uncertain whether this truce will extend, even for the next coming days, let alone weeks and months, to create a durable and sustainable stability in Lebanon.
Jen Rubin
They are quite far from the Lebanese border. We’re talking about Beirut and the suburbs of Beirut. Why does Israel think it’s necessary to, frankly, occupy all the way there, and wage battle there, rather than simply clearing out, if you will, the immediate range as they’ve done in the past, that’s closer to the border?
David Wood
So, Israel has previously… invaded southern Lebanon, and this happened most recently during the 2023-2024 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. But this time, we’ve seen Israeli leaders start to talk about much more expansive plans for a ground occupation in southern Lebanon. So, on this occasion, at times, Israeli officials have threatened to occupy Lebanese territory up to the River. which is about 30 kilometers into Lebanese territory beyond Israel’s northern border. It’s scaled back, it would seem for now, those ambitions, and is now insisting on retaining about a 10km band along the border, and even, in recent days, has started referring to this as a yellow line, similar to the yellow line that Israel insists should exist in Gaza. So, this is really concerning, because within this band that Israel insists on occupying, there are 55 Lebanese villages. In many of these villages, Israel is systematically destroying entire communities, making them completely unlivable, even if Israeli forces were eventually to withdraw. We’re not talking about a building here and a building there being destroyed. We’re talking about, absolutely nothing being left, and a complete, scorched earth policy. So, for that reason. There’s this fear amongst people who are displaced from southern Lebanon Not that… just that they don’t know when they’ll be able to return home. But that even if they do return to their communities, that there will be simply nothing, none of the essentials they need to live there. And that this could be something that becomes not just some temporary arrangement until Hezbollah fully disarms, but a permanent and final displacement from their ancestral communities.
Jen Rubin
Describe for us the extent of the damage in Beirut and the suburbs. What are we talking about in terms of casualties, in terms of the physical danger, and the physical damage, and the essential services that are now put in jeopardy?
David Wood
Yeah, so Israel has… tended to focus its attacks on areas where Hezbollah has a significant presence. So this effectively means areas where there’s a majority of Lebanon’s Shia community living there. So these… one of these, as you mentioned, is Tahir, the Beirut southern suburbs, where it’s concentrated lots of attacks. I don’t have disaggregated figures based on location, but across Lebanon. We know that there’s around about 2,500 people have been killed since the 2nd of March by Israel. Thousands more are wounded. And over a million Lebanese have been displaced, so that’s 1 in 5 Lebanese citizens is currently internally displaced. And… In many cases, what you will find is that, given that the majority of those who’ve been displaced are from the Lebanese Shi’a community. they’re also, in many cases, unable to find a safe place to shelter. So, while Israel has said that in these areas, for example, in southern Lebanon, but also in Beirut’s southern suburbs, that there’s this general displacement order, and people need to leave their homes indefinitely, some people have actually had to return to these very communities and return to their homes, even though they’re living under the constant threat of imminent bombardment. And the reason for that is that many Lebanese have been reluctant to provide shelter to members of the Shia community who have been displaced, because Israel has repeatedly attacked targets in non-Shia communities. And for that reason, these other communities are saying. while they, in an ideal world, would love to provide shelter for those who have no home to go back to, they also don’t want to bring the risk of Israel’s massive military escalation coming to their own doorstep and impacting their communities.
Jen Rubin
Israel seems to be convinced, as it was with Iran, and still is with Iran, that deterrence is not good enough, that damage is not good enough, that there is some attainable Endpoint, where they can completely eliminate whatever threat there is. How realistic is that with Hezbollah? How long would they have to intervene? How long would they have to occupy? How much damage would they do if they were to really destroy all of Hezbollah? Which, frankly, has been crippled since the operations after October 7.
David Wood
Hmm. Frankly, history suggests that Israel stands no realistic prospect of destroying Hezbollah completely. by relying on its military superiority as its only strategy. And one clear piece of evidence to support that position would be that Israel, after the 7th of October, has not been able to completely destroy Hamas in Gaza. So if it was unable to destroy Hamas in Gaza, how does it plan to destroy the much more powerful Hezbollah, which is operating in the much bigger territory of Lebanon. It’s inconceivable, so… While Israel has demonstrated that it has the clear military capability to maintain an occupation of a huge swathe of southern Lebanon, it has the military capacity to endlessly bombard Lebanon, the reality is that that is not, very likely. to result in actually eliminating Hezbollah as a threat. Now, you’re right when you say that Hezbollah has been severely weakened by this conflict with Israel, not just in this iteration in 2026, but ever since October 2023. Israel has persistently attacked Hezbollah. In that two and a half year period. But, the reality is that Hezbollah has retained enough military capacity to, over the past 6 weeks, continue firing thousands of rockets towards Israel, and to also put up a spirited resistance to Israel’s ground invasion. So, while we’re no longer talking about the Hezbollah of pre-October 2023, and undoubtedly the organization is weaker than it was before. The reality remains that Hezbollah, as a military organization. has survived up until now, and has the ability to continue posing security threats to Israel.
Jen Rubin
In the past, when we’ve had these conflicts, going all the way back to the 1980s, the international community has stepped in. There have been peacekeepers, there’s been UN resolutions, there’s been disarmament agreements. Why has none of that occurred so far?
David Wood
Well, I think the international community has been making some effort to address the situation in Lebanon right now. And in fairness, as we mentioned earlier, it was Donald Trump who forced through this temporary ceasefire. Now, of course, the main rationale that was operating on the Trump administration’s minds was not specifically the situation in Lebanon, but the continued fighting in Lebanon could upset ongoing US negotiations with Iran, and in particular. Iran opening the Strait of Fort Mulz, because Iran said that it wouldn’t. it wouldn’t meet this request, unless the ceasefire between the US and Iran also extended to Lebanon. So that was the main driver of that decision by the US administration. Now, there is a… there is, a UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, and it has been there for almost 50 years. This is Unifil. But, last summer, the UN Security Council, under, urging from the US, only renewed Unifil’s mandate for a final time, and that final mandate is due to expire at the end of this year. What that means is that unless the international community can come up with some kind of replacement operation, and there is interest in doing this. So, unless the international community can come up with some kind of replacement force that can continue to contribute to stabilization in southern Lebanon, the people of the South will again find themselves even more isolated and have absolutely no permanent international presence in southern Lebanon, where we have this ongoing and expanding Israeli occupation, and up until now, no real horizon on when that occupation would come to an end.
Jen Rubin
What’s been the cost in casualties, in military expenditure for Israel? This is not a cost-free operation, and the longer it goes on, obviously, the more casualties and the more cost. Is this… I know there’s been discussion in Israel. Israel is, and the IDF is overextended, that all of these wars, these continual wars, have depleted the forces because they’ve exempted so many individuals in the Haredi community. that the IDF, is becoming, dangerously thin, and, perhaps we’ll reach a crisis point. How much is Lebanon contributing to that, and is that a significant drain on Israel’s resources to combat terrorism elsewhere?
David Wood
So, it’s clear that Israel has been fighting on several fronts for well over two years now, and this is not a sustainable strategy moving forward. And entering into another forever war in Lebanon is something that would drain, or put enormous strain at least, on Israel’s population. would place strain on its military resources, and ultimately, as we were saying before, is incredibly unlikely to achieve the stated objective of Israel, which is to remove Hezbollah once and for all as a national security threat. Instead. The more likely path to achieving that outcome would be to translate these military gains that Israel’s made into long-term political gains, and that will require working genuinely with the Lebanese government, and probably With the US also, reaching out to Iran to get Iran’s consent to Hezbollah’s disarmament, so that it stops providing the group with support, so that, in exchange for Hezbollah’s full disarmament, Israel can withdraw finally and completely from Lebanese territory, and that is the basis for a new security arrangement that’s actually workable. But for as long as Israel continues to just try to find military solutions to this problem. It will not only stretch its own resources, but also ensure that whether it’s Hezbollah or some other armed group, there will always be violent resistance to Israel’s posture towards Lebanon, and that will create its own security risk going into the future for Israel.
Jen Rubin
And this, of course, is a microcosm of the larger war with Iran, that Israel has come to be convinced that there’s no negotiated settlement that would protect it. the JCPOA wasn’t good enough, a kind of mowing of the lawn last year wasn’t good enough, and that there must be some kind of military solution. Right now, Donald Trump seems to have tired of that and been unwilling to do it. Why does that live Israel domestically? Is the public reaching any kind of realization that this is not a permanent solution to their problems? That… forever wars are not going to bring the absolute guarantee of security, and that they have to produce some other kinds of solutions? Or is the public still enamored of purely military solutions?
David Wood
Look, I don’t profess to be an expert on Israeli domestic politics, but my understanding is that there are some voices in Israel that are making this point, that Israel can’t continue holding a hammer and treating every problem as a nail. But on the other hand, I think that post the 7th of October, there’s been a real psychological shift, not for all Israelis, but for a lot of Israelis. And this is not just the leadership, which believes that the military solutions, and using force to, to deal with enemies, and not being content with just keeping threats at bay, but actually eliminating them, that these ideas are still popular in Israel. So the Netanyahu government is responding, in many ways, to the desires of the Israeli public on this front. Of course, this could change over time, but in the meantime. Where you’re facing situations in Lebanon, as one particular example, but also in Gaza, also in the West Bank, where this very aggressive posture of Israel is costing people their lives now. And even if there is eventually a realization in Israel that these forever wars are not a sustainable way forward, in the meantime, the amount of death and destruction that’s being wreaked by these policies is unacceptable.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. And, I would commend to people an essay in Foreign Affairs by Raphael Ben Levy, who makes this exact point, that the trauma of October 7 convinced Israel not to take any, quote, risks for peace. No negotiated deals, that there has to be a military solution. And in fact, I think what we’re seeing, both in Iran proper and in Lebanon, is ultimately there aren’t perfect military solutions, at least not ones that are morally, and, politically, economically, sustainable. Do you think this truce will hold? Do you think Donald Trump will force, Israel to abate its, I don’t want to say adventure, but its mission in Lebanon? Or do you think the fighting will resume regardless of the outcome of the overall Iran negotiations?
David Wood
So, largely this truce at the minute is hinging on the Trump administration’s, and perhaps the presidents himself, continued attention and interest in sustaining it, because it’s become clear that the United States alone has the capacity to exert the pressure needed, has the leverage required to make sure that the parties, and especially Israel, will comply with the ceasefire, and not continue to resort to violence as problems come up. Now, there is a live risk that this ceasefire could collapse, but there’s also an existing vehicle that the United States could use to manage this ceasefire, and to usher in a period of sustainability of stability, which would allow, potentially, for a more durable arrangement to take hold. And that is that under the previous ceasefire agreement, there was a monitoring mechanism, which was meant to be the vehicle for dealing with alleged ceasefire violations. Now, in practice, last time around. Israel, constantly resorted to military operations against perceived threats, rather than by going through this body and resolving them diplomatically. If this happens again, it will almost certainly result in the collapse of the ceasefire, and that could happen at any moment. For that reason, if the United States throws its weight fully behind this monitoring mechanism, and makes clear to both parties that If they believe the ceasefire is being violated by the counterparty, that they need to discuss this in the mechanism and find a peaceful way to resolve it, the truce can remain on foot. But without that kind of sustained US attention and investment in this ceasefire, it’s incredibly likely that it will collapse.
Jen Rubin
Well, this certainly highlights the phenomenon that, Israel and the Trump administration have combined to have a rather dysfunctional relationship, where rather than restraining Israel and acting as either a broker or a stabilizing force, we have encouraged Israel, which has created more death, more conflict, without a perceived goal point, in mind. So, it does point to the fact that, the United States as a rogue nation is not a very effective way of securing peace and stability in the world. Thank you, David. It is a pleasure to talk to you. I’m sure we will talk to you in the future. It’s a fascinating and a tragic situation, but thank you for spending some time with us.
David Wood
Thank you very much, Jen. Speak to you soon.
Jen Rubin
Take care!
David Wood
Thanks, bye. Okay.
