Hezbollah’s response following the unusual rocket fire from southern Lebanon toward Metula (March 22), after more than three months of quiet, reflects the organization’s current interest in avoiding renewed fighting with Israel. The organization, which hastened to deny responsibility for the launch, is in a weakened position and under pressure due to ongoing IDF military operations against it; damage to its internal standing given the shift in attitude toward it by Lebanon’s new leadership and internal criticism over its role in the country’s dire state; a reduction in its sources of income; and ongoing clashes between its members and elements of the new regime in Syria along the shared border.
Hezbollah’s statement after the rocket fire reaffirmed its official stance of commitment to maintaining the ceasefire and placed responsibility on the Lebanese state to address the Israeli challenge—particularly ending the “occupation,” for now through diplomatic means. The group’s new leadership wishes to focus all its resources at this stage on its recovery, yet it appears that there is internal disagreement within Hezbollah over its containment strategy in the face of continued Israeli strikes. However, it seems those responsible for the rocket fire on Metula were not Hezbollah operatives, and there are indications that Palestinian actors were behind the launch, possibly with tacit approval or a blind eye from Hezbollah elements on the ground. In this context, the possibility of similar sporadic incidents in the future cannot be ruled out.
The response of the Lebanese leadership to the rocket incident reflects the changing political landscape in Lebanon, which is working to restore state institutions and reduce Hezbollah’s influence. It acted quickly to deploy the Lebanese army to investigate the circumstances of the fire and engaged diplomatically to preserve the ceasefire and prevent escalation, while sending Hezbollah a warning that decisions regarding war and peace are the responsibility of the state. From this, it can be inferred that President Aoun and Israel share a common interest in continuing to weaken Hezbollah and neutralize the threat it poses.
At the same time, challenges remain due to the continued Israeli presence inside Lebanese territory, which plays into Hezbollah’s hands, as well as American pressure on Lebanon to advance ties with Israel.
From Israel’s perspective, the rocket incident indeed undermines the sense of security among northern residents—calling mainly for a civilian response to improve the situation of returning evacuees—but in the broader confrontation with Hezbollah, it also presents an opportunity to underscore the importance of continued IDF activity to enforce the ceasefire and conduct extensive strikes to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities and enforce deterrence.
Nevertheless, alongside military action, Israel should show increased sensitivity to the constraints of Lebanon’s new leadership—both in its operations and in avoiding premature public statements regarding potential normalization with Lebanon. In addition, Israel should reassess the necessity of continued presence in Lebanese territory and emphasize that it is a temporary measure until full control in southern Lebanon is transferred to UNIFIL forces.
Hezbollah’s response following the unusual rocket fire from southern Lebanon toward Metula (March 22), after more than three months of quiet, reflects the organization’s current interest in avoiding renewed fighting with Israel. The organization, which hastened to deny responsibility for the launch, is in a weakened position and under pressure due to ongoing IDF military operations against it; damage to its internal standing given the shift in attitude toward it by Lebanon’s new leadership and internal criticism over its role in the country’s dire state; a reduction in its sources of income; and ongoing clashes between its members and elements of the new regime in Syria along the shared border.
Hezbollah’s statement after the rocket fire reaffirmed its official stance of commitment to maintaining the ceasefire and placed responsibility on the Lebanese state to address the Israeli challenge—particularly ending the “occupation,” for now through diplomatic means. The group’s new leadership wishes to focus all its resources at this stage on its recovery, yet it appears that there is internal disagreement within Hezbollah over its containment strategy in the face of continued Israeli strikes. However, it seems those responsible for the rocket fire on Metula were not Hezbollah operatives, and there are indications that Palestinian actors were behind the launch, possibly with tacit approval or a blind eye from Hezbollah elements on the ground. In this context, the possibility of similar sporadic incidents in the future cannot be ruled out.
The response of the Lebanese leadership to the rocket incident reflects the changing political landscape in Lebanon, which is working to restore state institutions and reduce Hezbollah’s influence. It acted quickly to deploy the Lebanese army to investigate the circumstances of the fire and engaged diplomatically to preserve the ceasefire and prevent escalation, while sending Hezbollah a warning that decisions regarding war and peace are the responsibility of the state. From this, it can be inferred that President Aoun and Israel share a common interest in continuing to weaken Hezbollah and neutralize the threat it poses.
At the same time, challenges remain due to the continued Israeli presence inside Lebanese territory, which plays into Hezbollah’s hands, as well as American pressure on Lebanon to advance ties with Israel.
From Israel’s perspective, the rocket incident indeed undermines the sense of security among northern residents—calling mainly for a civilian response to improve the situation of returning evacuees—but in the broader confrontation with Hezbollah, it also presents an opportunity to underscore the importance of continued IDF activity to enforce the ceasefire and conduct extensive strikes to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities and enforce deterrence.
Nevertheless, alongside military action, Israel should show increased sensitivity to the constraints of Lebanon’s new leadership—both in its operations and in avoiding premature public statements regarding potential normalization with Lebanon. In addition, Israel should reassess the necessity of continued presence in Lebanese territory and emphasize that it is a temporary measure until full control in southern Lebanon is transferred to UNIFIL forces.