Each side claimed to be enforcing the ceasefire while accusing the other of breaking it.
Five days into a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, the silence over southern Lebanon shattered as Israeli airstrikes killed at least nine civilians in the villages of Haris and Tallous — a response, Israel said, to Hezbollah projectiles fired at the disputed Shebaa Farms enclave. The truce, meant to close a chapter of mass death and displacement, has instead become a new theater of competing claims, where both sides invoke the language of enforcement to justify what the other calls violation. In the long human story of contested borders and broken agreements, this moment asks an ancient question: when two parties disagree on what peace means, can a ceasefire be anything more than a pause?
- A ceasefire barely five days old fractured when Hezbollah fired on an Israeli border position and Israel responded with strikes across southern Lebanon, killing at least nine civilians.
- Both governments claim the moral high ground — Israel calls its strikes enforcement, while Lebanon's Nabih Berri has logged 54 alleged Israeli breaches with the international monitoring committee.
- The disputed Shebaa Farms enclave, claimed by both sides under different names, has become the flashpoint where competing sovereignties and grievances collide most visibly.
- A US-chaired monitoring committee now faces a mounting ledger of violations, with France and Washington urging restraint while the architecture of the agreement visibly strains.
- The 60-day timeline for Israeli withdrawal and Lebanese army deployment — the structural spine of the entire deal — is now in serious jeopardy before it has truly begun.
The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah was barely five days old when Israeli warplanes struck southern Lebanese villages on Monday, killing at least nine people — five in Haris and four in Tallous. The strikes followed Hezbollah's claim that it had fired two projectiles at an Israeli position in the disputed Shebaa Farms, a rocky border enclave each side names differently and neither fully relinquishes.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the Hezbollah fire a serious violation and promised a forceful response. Within hours, the military announced strikes on dozens of targets across southern Lebanon, reaching roughly 20 kilometers from the border. Defence Minister Israel Katz signaled the response would be harsher still. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar rejected any suggestion his country had broken the ceasefire, framing the strikes instead as accountability — pointing to reports that Hezbollah was moving weapons and maintaining fighters south of the Litani River, a boundary the agreement required them to vacate.
Lebanon's parliament speaker Nabih Berri, who had helped broker the truce, saw it entirely differently. He accused Israel of near-daily strikes since the ceasefire took effect and presented the US-chaired monitoring committee with a list of at least 54 alleged Israeli breaches, demanding enforcement and withdrawal.
The broader conflict had escalated sharply in late September when Israel shifted military focus from Gaza to Lebanon, dealing Hezbollah what analysts described as severe blows to its command structure while forcing mass evacuations on both sides of the border. The ceasefire was meant to end that cycle — establishing a 60-day window for Israeli withdrawal and Lebanese army deployment into the south.
But that timeline now faces serious doubt. The United States said it still believed the ceasefire was holding and was examining the violations. France called on both sides to respect the terms. What the agreement had promised as an end to hostilities was becoming, instead, a new contest over the meaning of peace itself.
The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, barely five days old, was already cracking. On Monday, Israeli warplanes struck southern Lebanese villages, killing at least nine people—five in Haris, four in Tallous—in what the military described as a targeted response to Hezbollah aggression. The strikes came after the militant group claimed it had fired two projectiles at an Israeli position in the disputed Shebaa Farms, a rocky border enclave both sides call by different names: Hezbollah calls it the occupied hills of Kfar Shouba; Israel calls it Har Dov. The exchange, swift and sharp, illustrated how fragile the truce really was.
The ceasefire had begun just four days earlier, meant to end a war that had already killed thousands across Lebanon and displaced families on both sides of the border. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to the Hezbollah attack by accusing the group of a "serious violation" and vowing a forceful response. Defence Minister Israel Katz promised something harsher still. Within hours, the Israeli military announced it was striking targets throughout Lebanon—dozens of what it called Hezbollah positions and infrastructure. The strikes reached areas roughly 20 kilometers from the border, deep into southern Lebanon where Hezbollah has held sway for decades.
But who was actually violating the agreement? That question split the two sides immediately. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar rejected any suggestion that his country had breached the terms. Instead, he framed the strikes as enforcement—Israel was holding Hezbollah accountable for its own violations. He pointed to reports that Hezbollah was moving weapons in the south and maintaining a military presence south of the Litani River, a key boundary under the ceasefire terms. Under the agreement, Hezbollah was supposed to withdraw its fighters from that zone and dismantle its military infrastructure there. The Lebanese army and UN peacekeepers were meant to move in as Israeli forces withdrew over 60 days.
Lebanon's parliament speaker Nabih Berri, who had helped broker the truce on behalf of Hezbollah, saw things differently. He accused Israel of carrying out "aggressive actions" that represented a "flagrant violation" of the ceasefire agreement. He noted that Israel had conducted near-daily strikes in southern Lebanon since the truce took effect. More pointedly, Berri told the monitoring committee—a US-chaired body meant to keep communication open between Israel, Lebanon, the UN, and France—that there had been at least 54 breaches by Israel. He demanded the committee force Israel to stop and withdraw from occupied territories.
The fighting that led to this moment had escalated sharply in late September when Israel shifted its military focus from Gaza to Lebanon, determined to secure its northern border from Hezbollah attacks. The Iran-backed Shiite movement had been launching cross-border strikes in support of Hamas and in response to the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. Over the following weeks, Israel dealt Hezbollah what military analysts called stunning blows, dismantling much of its command structure and forcing mass evacuations in southern Lebanon and northern Israel.
By Monday, the ceasefire was already showing the strain of competing interpretations and mutual suspicion. The United States said it still believed the ceasefire was holding and that it was examining potential violations. France's foreign minister called both sides to respect the terms. But the pattern was clear: each side accused the other of breaking faith, each claimed to be enforcing rather than violating the agreement, and the technical committee tasked with preventing escalation faced a mounting list of disputed incidents. The 60-day timeline for Israeli withdrawal and Lebanese army deployment—the backbone of the entire arrangement—was now in serious question. What had been meant to end the cycle of attack and retaliation was instead becoming another arena where both sides fought over the meaning of peace itself.
Citas Notables
Israel demands that the relevant parties in Lebanon fulfil their responsibilities and prevent Hezbollah's hostile activity.— Israeli military statement
The aggressive actions carried out by Israeli occupation forces represent a flagrant violation of the terms of the ceasefire agreement.— Nabih Berri, Lebanese parliament speaker
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does a ceasefire that's only five days old already have both sides accusing each other of violations?
Because the agreement itself is built on terms that require trust neither side has earned. Hezbollah is supposed to pull back south of the Litani River and dismantle weapons. Israel is supposed to withdraw over 60 days. But each side sees the other's actions through the lens of the war that just happened—and that war killed thousands.
So when Israel strikes, it says it's enforcing the ceasefire. When Hezbollah fires, it says Israel violated it first. How does anyone break the cycle?
That's what the monitoring committee is supposed to do. But Berri is already saying there have been 54 breaches. If you can't agree on what counts as a violation, you can't enforce anything.
The strikes killed nine civilians. Does that change the legal or diplomatic standing of either side?
Legally, it depends on whether those strikes hit legitimate military targets or were disproportionate. Diplomatically, it hardens positions. Berri uses civilian deaths to argue Israel is the aggressor. Israel argues it had to respond to Hezbollah's attack. The dead become evidence in an argument about who broke the peace first.
Is there any scenario where this ceasefire actually holds for the full 60 days?
Only if both sides decide the cost of returning to full war is higher than the cost of restraint. Right now, neither seems convinced of that. Every incident gets interpreted as proof the other side was never serious about peace.