It was scarcely normal when the Lebanese army had to announce it would remain at Sarda, a spot in the Marjeyoun area, near the Israeli-controlled Hamames hill site inside Lebanese territory. This step by the army is a continuation of the leadership’s efforts to deploy advanced positions along the border.

The army command has issued orders to reinforce the position, remain there, and respond to any sources of fire. The Israeli forces continued their provocations, firing warning shots and sending drones that broadcast messages over loudspeakers ordering the army to withdraw and abandon the newly established point.

Attacks aimed at compelling direct coordination

The Israeli attacks on the Lebanese army in the Sarda area represent a dangerous development, as they aim to impose a field equation along the border: that any deployment or movement by the Lebanese army must occur only through direct coordination, bypassing previous channels. In its statement, the Israeli army indicated that the establishment of the point was uncoordinated, raising questions about the field reality that Tel Aviv seeks to impose in the south, especially along the border.

Previously, coordination was conducted through UNIFIL forces, but these forces are now viewed by the Israelis as “hostile forces” and have been directly targeted multiple times.

The Israeli side’s demand for the Lebanese army to withdraw from the Sarda point would open the door for similar demands. Explaining the targeting of the army’s position, former Lebanese government representative to UNIFIL, Brigadier General Munir Shahada, said, “For months, Israel has treated any Lebanese deployment south of the Litani River—even by the Lebanese army—as a change in the rules of engagement.”

The area south of the Litani is subject to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. The legitimate authority entitled to deploy there is the Lebanese army in coordination with UNIFIL, and establishing any point inside Lebanese territory is no violation, falling within Lebanon’s sovereignty the legitimate rights of the Lebanese army. As for the attack on the Lebanese army position, Shahada explains that it carries a message beyond the military dimension: “Israel wants to establish an equation whereby it alone determines the operational ceiling in the south, as well as the deployment and positioning of the Lebanese army.”

In the face of these threats, the Lebanese army insisted on standing firm, signaling a clear decision to assert sovereignty. Any retreat would have been interpreted as a practical acknowledgment of Israel’s right to impose field lines inside Lebanese territory.

He noted that “the army is keen not to appear as a bystander in the eyes of the public, especially in the south, and that official Lebanon continues to exercise its role there, meaning the area is not entirely left to other forces.

It is notable that the insistence on remaining in position was measured and did not escalate into a full confrontation, indicating that the decision was defensive and sovereign, not provocative.”

However, what happened in Sarda is considered exceptional, even if it has not yet fully played out, without reaching the scale of the confrontation in Al Aadaissah on August 4, 2010, although army bulldozers did remove earth barriers near the Hamames hill to prevent Israeli fire toward the town of Khiam. According to a security source speaking to Annahar, the reinforcement of border positions will continue to cover the entire border area. Whether this will prevent incursions and the demolition of houses is a complex question and not easily answered.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.