Representatives warn of a security vacuum in southern Lebanon before the Israeli withdrawal

Preparing for the next round of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations in Tampa (in the US state of Florida) opens a debate within Lebanon about the nature of the new phase in managing the southern file, and whether it indicates a transition from political negotiation of withdrawal and sovereignty to military management of the southern regions, which is denied by accompanying Lebanese sources, stressing that there are outstanding military and security issues that will be addressed.

A ministerial source told Asharq Al-Awsat that the focus on the military and security aspect at the current stage is due to the nature of the files that are still pending, which require field decisions and procedures before progress can be made on the rest of the tracks. He continued: “It is not true that we have moved to a military administration for the south. The issues that are still pending and no progress has been achieved so far are mostly field and military in nature, from stopping the bulldozing, house demolition, shooting, and military operations, to the Israeli withdrawal and identifying new model areas, in addition to the prisoners’ file and the return of the people to their villages.”

He added: “These are not political, economic, or legal files that can be discussed by experts from these specializations. We are talking about field details: where the withdrawal takes place, where operations stop, how the Lebanese army is deployed, and what areas the people can return to. Therefore, it is natural for the military to be involved in discussing these details.”

The source explained that “military operations are still continuing, albeit at a slower pace, and therefore it is not possible to move seriously to the rest of the steps before achieving a minimum level of security stability,” asking: “How can the Lebanese army deploy if there is no Israeli withdrawal or the shooting stops?” How can the people be returned to their villages if demolition, bulldozing, and military operations continue?

The source pointed out that “the American focus at this stage is on addressing the outstanding military and security issues with the Israelis, especially with regard to completing the withdrawal, identifying the model areas, and stopping the bulldozing, demolition, and shooting, allowing the rest of the files to be moved.”

He stressed that “this does not mean that a military path will replace the political path,” explaining that “the negotiations proceeded from the beginning along two lines, political and military, but progress in the political files remained largely linked to the situation on the ground, because it is not possible to build on any political path without a measure of stability and an actual ceasefire.”

He said that these considerations explain the military and security nature of the current meetings, adding: “What is required are field decisions, and that is why discussion is taking place at this stage in a meeting focused on military and security matters, in order to resolve the points that are still outstanding, provided that this is done with American pressure on Israel.”

Therefore, the American role at this stage becomes linked, according to the ministerial source, to pressuring Israel to address these files, and not to establishing an alternative military administration for the south.

But MP Ashraf Rifi offers a different reading of the nature of the stage, and believes that the progress of the military component is not just a temporary technical measure, but rather reflects a change in the way the file is managed.

Representative Rifi told Asharq Al-Awsat that he expects the next stage to witness a “very violent round” in the south, explaining that his estimates indicate that the escalation may be concentrated in Al-Rayhan and Sajjad and their surroundings. He added: “I do not think that the escalation will extend to Beirut unless assassinations occur.”

Regarding the path of negotiating the Israeli withdrawal, and whether Lebanon is facing a transition from political negotiation to a military approach to managing the situation in the south, Rifi indicated that “the south is heading to a military, intelligence and security administration under American supervision,” adding that “the path has moved from simply negotiating the Israeli withdrawal to a more comprehensive military and security administration for the south, which includes in part the Israeli withdrawal file, but under American supervision.”

He said: “We have moved from the stage of negotiating withdrawal to the stage of military, intelligence and security management of the south under American supervision. This administration, of course, includes the issue of Israeli withdrawal, but it places it within broader arrangements that the United States is supervising.”

Rifi pointed out that “the military scene has become advanced at this stage,” adding that the features of these arrangements will become clearer as the field situation develops and the expected military tour ends.

In contrast to Rifi's reading, the former Lebanese ambassador to Washington, Antoine Chedid, stresses that the advancement of the military nature does not change the nature of the path or its political reference, and links this to the powers of the Lebanese army itself.

Ambassador Shadid told Asharq Al-Awsat that “Lebanon did not move from political negotiations over withdrawal and sovereignty to military negotiations or military administration for the south,” stressing that the discussions related to the Tampa meeting come in the context of continuing the existing path, even if the place of their holding and the nature of its participants suggest a military nature.

Shadid explained that “Tampa is a military center, but that does not mean that Lebanon went to military negotiations with Israel,” stressing that “the Lebanese army implements what the government, the political authority, and the President of the Republic decide, and therefore it cannot go alone to military negotiations with the Israelis, even if they are mediated by America, or make decisions that are within the jurisdiction of the political authority in Lebanon.”

He added: “The Tampa talks are not military discussions par excellence. Rather, they are a continuation of the political framework and discussions that began in Washington and Rome, but in a different form, as the location and the nature of those present may suggest that they are military negotiations.”

Shadid stressed that “the Lebanese army cannot decide in Tampa what belongs to the political authority in Lebanon,” pointing out that “the army works under the authority of the political decision, as it should be, and therefore I do not see that what is happening in Tampa constitutes a transition to a separate military path.”

A year after the launch of US President Donald Trump's plan to end the Gaza war, the plan is still in place. Israel continues to launch almost daily attacks and occupies about two-thirds of the devastated Strip, where the Palestinians face tragic conditions.

The first phase of the plan led to a ceasefire on October 10, 2025, and resulted in the release of the last remaining hostages held by Hamas in the 2023 attacks on Israel, in addition to the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israel.

But other goals, including disarming Hamas, ensuring Israel's withdrawal, and rebuilding Gaza, still seem out of reach.

What did the plan include?

The first phase of Trump's 20-item plan included: Suspension of all military operations, Israeli withdrawal from part of the Strip, release of hostages and prisoners, and a significant increase in aid flows.

The subsequent stages stipulated the disarmament of Hamas and the assumption of a new Palestinian body managing the Strip under the supervision of the peace council led by Trump.

Israel was scheduled to gradually withdraw and hand over the territory to the Interim International Stabilization Force. The plan stated: “Gaza will be redeveloped in a way that serves the interests of its residents, who have suffered enough and more.”

Did the ceasefire hold?

The situation did not witness a return to large-scale military operations, but Israeli strikes continued. The Gaza Ministry of Health says at least 1,400 Palestinians have been killed since the October ceasefire, many of them women and children, but it does not disclose the number of militants killed.

Israel says that its strikes target Hamas, accusing the movement of trying to carry out attacks and rearm, and Hamas denies this.

According to the Israeli army, 5 Israeli soldiers have been killed by Palestinian militants or during fighting since the ceasefire took effect.

How much land does Israel control in Gaza today?

Most of them. The first phase of Trump's plan stipulated Israel's withdrawal to what is known as the "yellow line," keeping Israeli forces in control of 53 percent of Gaza.

Since then, the Israeli army has expanded its effective control to include about two-thirds of the territory of the Gaza Strip.

The advance of the Yellow Line led to the displacement of more Palestinians, confining about two million people to a shrinking coastal strip, where they are sheltering in tents and damaged buildings. Palestinian armed groups supported by Israel and opposed to Hamas use areas under Israeli control to launch attacks on areas controlled by the movement.

Have aid flows improved?

Yes, but relief organizations say that is not enough. The Integrated Interim Classification for Food Security, a global body that monitors hunger, says that more than 1.2 million people still face acute hunger in Gaza despite the significant expansion in aid deliveries after the ceasefire.

In a report issued in August, the classification was based on data showing that the average number of trucks transporting humanitarian and commercial supplies to Gaza was 227 trucks per day from the start of the ceasefire until the end of May, which is less than half of the minimum of 600 trucks per day stipulated in the “Gaza Plan.”

The Coordination Unit for Government Activities in the Territories, the Israeli military body that controls access to Gaza, did not respond to a request for comment on the figure included in the IPC report, according to Reuters.

Israel says that about 600 trucks loaded with humanitarian aid and commercial goods enter the Strip daily, and that Gaza receives enough goods to meet needs, and that it is fulfilling its obligations.

Aid agencies say Israel is preventing essential materials from entering Gaza; Including metal tent poles, motor oils and spare parts, under the pretext that Hamas may use them for military purposes.

Is Hamas ready to disarm?

The movement indicated this, but a plan unveiled in July to achieve this goal also faltered. Trump said that Hamas and other armed factions in Gaza had agreed to a 15-point road map prepared by the Peace Council to give up their weapons.

Israeli forces were scheduled to withdraw simultaneously with the disarmament of Hamas, while the International Stabilization Force, in cooperation with a new Palestinian security force, would assume the task of securing Gaza. Trump described the plan as historic.

Hamas said it had agreed to hand over its weapons to be stored under the control of the Palestinian technocratic government supported by the United States. Although Hamas refused to use the term “disarmament,” this represented a position that was previously difficult to imagine for the Iran-backed movement. But Israel, which doubts that Hamas will give up its weapons, described the plan as unacceptable, and said that it would not carry out any withdrawal before Hamas is completely disarmed, according to a Reuters report.

Has the International Stabilization Force been formed?

Plans for it have crystallized, but not yet taken shape. It has a leader, the American Major General Jasper Jeffers, and Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Albania, Kosovo, and Uganda have pledged to provide individuals to participate in it.

Jeffers said that the long-term plan is for the international stabilization force to include 20,000 soldiers, with 12,000 Palestinian police trained.

As for the Palestinian technocratic ruling body, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, it was appointed in January and is headed by Ali Shaath, who previously served as deputy minister in the Palestinian Authority, based in Ramallah. The committee has not yet entered the Gaza Strip.

What about reconstruction?

A year later, Palestinians are still digging through the rubble of destroyed buildings in search of materials to use to reinforce tents and other shelters, while in September the Peace Council unveiled a $2.45 billion plan to begin the reconstruction of Gaza.

This amount represents a small portion of the actual needs. The Peace Council cited an assessment issued by the European Union and the United Nations in April, which estimated recovery and reconstruction needs at $71.4 billion over the next ten years.

What do Israeli politicians say about the future of Gaza?

While Trump's plan pledges to encourage residents to remain in Gaza, right-wing Israeli politicians have intensified their calls for the mass deportation of Palestinians through what they describe as "voluntary immigration."

Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz said last month that “there is no real solution for Gaza in the end without this migration.”

In 2025, the Israeli Ministry of Defense established an office entrusted with the task of supervising “voluntary migration” from Gaza, after statements by Trump in which he hinted at the possibility of permanently displacing the population of the Strip, but Trump later backed down from this idea, which faced strong opposition from Arab countries and was met with widespread rejection at the international level.

Israeli officials said there were no plans to forcibly transfer Gazans out of the Strip. Israel is scheduled to hold general elections on October 27, the first in the country since the attack on October 7, 2023. Some of the most prominent opposition figures expressed their support for Trump’s plan, while opinion polls indicate intense competition between parties supporting and opposing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.