Connect with us

RSS

IDF Withdrawal from Lebanon: Is it Feasible by Jan. 26?

A general view shows the Lebanese capital Beirut during the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, in Beirut, Lebanon, January 1, 2025. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

JNS.orgDespite the 60-day test period for the northern ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, at the end of which, the Israeli military is supposed to withdraw from the Land of the Cedars, the Israel Defense Forces remains engaged in frequent operations targeting Hezbollah positions in Southern Lebanon.

For example, on Jan. 12, the IDF conducted what it described as “intelligence-based strikes on a number of Hezbollah terror targets in Lebanon.”

The strikes were preceded by the presentation of intelligence to the ceasefire monitoring mechanism, the military said, consisting of representatives of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), the United States, France and the United Nations, which failed to address the threats posed by the targets.

The targets included “a rocket launcher site, a military site and routes along the Syria-Lebanon border used to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah,” the IDF said, while stressing its commitment to “remove any threat to the State of Israel” and preventing “any attempt by the Hezbollah terrorist organization to rebuild its forces in accordance with the ceasefire understandings.”

As such, concerns are growing about whether the Lebanese Armed Forces can fulfill its obligations to clamp down on illegal Hezbollah activity in Southern Lebanon under the ceasefire agreement.

Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, a senior research fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, and former head of the Research and Assessment Division of Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate, told JNS that the IDF is enforcing the ceasefire not only through its presence in the region but also via surveillance and targeted strikes beyond the immediate areas under its deployment.

“We see strikes in the last 24 hours in areas along the crossings between Syria and Lebanon. We saw strikes on various military targets that were not properly addressed by the Lebanese,” said Kuperwasser.

He added that while these operations aim to prevent Hezbollah from rearming in violation of the ceasefire, they also highlight a key difference from past engagements, which Israel did not actively enforce.

“Unlike the reality under U.N. [Security Council] Resolution 1701 before the [Swords of Iron/Northern Arrows] war, when we refrained from striking Lebanon, now we strike if the Lebanese Army fails to fulfill its obligations. We will report violations to the monitoring committee, and if they act, excellent. If they do not act, we will act ourselves.

“Can this be done 100%? No, because some of these villagers are Hezbollah operatives, and they live in these villages,” he said. “But it must be insured that there is no Hezbollah presence—in the form of armed Hezbollah operatives—in these places.”

Kuperwasser expressed doubts about the LAF’s ability to deliver on its responsibilities, particularly under its new leadership.

“The hope is that the Lebanese Army, especially now that there is a new president and a new government in Lebanon, will fulfill its duties. But we have not yet seen a sufficiently effective deployment of the Lebanese Army,” he said.

He added that while Israel intends to fulfill its side of the signed agreement and withdraw, delays in the IDF withdrawal could nevertheless occur if the LAF is not prepared to take full control. “If the reality proves that they are not ready, it may be necessary to postpone the implementation [of the withdrawal],” Kuperwasser said.

“Israel signed an agreement. It agreed to the understandings, and intends to implement them. If the other side cannot fulfill its part of the agreement, we need to either reopen it, extend the timeline, or find other ways to address the issue,” Kuperwasser said.

Airstrikes not enough

Dr. Yossi Mansharof, an expert on Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Shi’ite militias at the Misgav Institute, argued that the IDF faces a “problematic situation” in which it is enforcing the ceasefire while the LAF fails to take meaningful action.

The IDF, he said, is essentially enforcing the ceasefire without the monitoring mechanism fulfilling its mission or enforcing the ceasefire itself.

“The Lebanese Army is not addressing the information transferred by the IDF regarding Hezbollah’s presence south of the Litani River. The Americans are determined to continue with this outline, and therefore, it seems that the best Israel can do is reconsider whether it can withdraw from areas it took from Hezbollah, which should be a significant bargaining chip in applying the ceasefire agreement.”

Mansharof noted that airstrikes alone cannot provide a long-term solution, adding, “As proven in the wars in Gaza and Lebanon, airstrikes are of limited effectiveness. As long as the Lebanese Army is not fulfilling the role assigned to it by all sides in the ceasefire, the IDF should delay its withdrawal and demand that the Lebanese government acts in line with the agreed ceasefire mechanism.”

The situation is further complicated by international pressure, according to Mansharof.

“Israel is expected to face international, and particularly American, pressure,” he cautioned, referring to a statement made by U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein during a recent visit to Beirut, in which he reiterated Washington’s commitment to ensuring the IDF’s full withdrawal by Jan. 26.

However, Mansharof argued that the LAF, under the leadership of newly elected Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, is ill-prepared to meet the demands of the ceasefire.

“It seems that the Lebanese Army is unable to transition from a period in which it cooperated, in various ways, under Aoun’s command, with Hezbollah, to a situation in which it acts directly against Hezbollah,” Mansharof warned.

He expressed similar concerns regarding the Shi’ite population in Southern Lebanon, which has historically cooperated with Hezbollah.

“It is clear that this raises a lot of concern among the residents of the [Israeli] border communities,” Mansharof said, adding that Hezbollah operatives have used civilian homes to store weapons and ammunition.

The post IDF Withdrawal from Lebanon: Is it Feasible by Jan. 26? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”

He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.

Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.

Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.

But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.

He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”

He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.

He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.

He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.

He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”

Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.

“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.

SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY

Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.

Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.

Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.

Continue Reading

RSS

Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly

US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas

Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.

A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.

Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.

On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.

“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.

The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.

Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.

Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.

WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”

“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.

“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.

JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel

Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.

The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.

While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.

Continue Reading

RSS

Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis

Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot

Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.

“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”

Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.

“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.

Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.

She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.

The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”

Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”

The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News