Tehran – Modern conflict chronicles Israel’s withdrawal from Israel stands as a prominent example of how even the military profession where non-armed civilian movements are most established.
Despite repeated ceasefires and diplomatic pressures, Israel refused to accept its position by retreating a grassroots civilian campaign and a massive march and a retreat of refugees to a village of displaced families. . The retreat was not merely a military retreat for Israel, but a psychological victory over resistance. It highlighted important lessons from asymmetric wars. Victory often begins in the heart, not in the battlefield.
Despite the US brokerage ceasefire agreement, which requires Israelis to withdraw from southern Lebanon by January 26, 2025, Israeli forces have refused to retreat completely, and have been in more than a dozen villages. I’ve maintained it. This refusal sparked frustration among the displaced people who organized protests to reclaim their villages. On January 26-27, Israeli forces killed 24 protesters, wounded more than 130 people, escalated tensions and elicited international accusations for violating ceasefire conditions. Large civilian protests erupted as protests in southern Lebanon, with displaced people trying to return home with Lebanese military vehicles. The Israeli army responded with live fire, killing two people and injuring 17 on January 27 alone. Hezbollah framed the protest as a rebellion against Israeli occupation, but civilians like Monabazzi declared resilience. The protest highlighted the demand for grassroots sovereignty, despite Israel accusing Hezbollah of “stimulating” anxiety by approaching the crowd and “stimulating” Shot, who fired fire.
Israel’s refusal to follow deadlines became a recurring theme rooted in the belief that military control and geopolitical calculations win. Despite international pressure, Israeli leaders have effectively acknowledged their veto on the timeline, claiming that withdrawal only occurs under “safe conditions.” This incompromise reflected confidence in traditional military logic. Its excellent firepower, surveillance and enhanced position means it could limit resistance indefinitely. However, this calculus ignored important variables, a Lebanese civilian institution.
On Sunday, January 26th, a private movement emerged. Displaced people in the occupied village began organizing marches and demanded the right to return home. These protests were not explicitly armed, but had deep, symbolic weight. Thousands of Lebanese civilians have flooded the occupying territory. The image of unarmed civilians facing occupying forces shattered the story of Israeli control.
The movement was innovative in its simplicity. Unlike traditional military operations that Israel prepared to counter, civilian marches operated outside the framework of “war.” They armed their vision, exposing the moral bankruptcy of occupation and stripping them of their pretext to stay in Israel. The occupational infrastructure (checkpoints, fortress) is covered under the weight of collective rebellion, not under artillery fire.
Israel’s miscalculation focused narrowly on military and guerrilla threats. It anticipated Hezbollah’s tactics, but failed to explain the power of civilian mobilization. In modern warfare, states often rely on predictive models. Assess enemy abilities, map potential responses, and plan accordingly. When Hezbollah engaged in a guerrilla strike, Israel adapted. However, civilian marching ignored classification. They were neither violent nor passive. They were forms of resistance, armed with presence rather than weapons.
For occupants, civilian violations are nightmare scenarios. It denied legitimacy, complicating rebelliousness, and attracted global scrutiny. By returning to the mass, Lebanese civilians have transformed the occupying territory from a “security zone” into a moral and logistical quagmire. Israel could not justify shootings of unarmed crowds without risking international condemnation.
The withdrawal from Lebanon underscores a paradigm shift in conflict, namely the dominance of psychological and informational aspects. Modern wars often win by cognitively beating them, rather than effectively overpowering them. Israeli occupation relied on a strict playbook of power, division and rules tactics, and deterrence through diplomatic stalling. However, Resist rewrites the script.
Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon provides a lasting lesson for asymmetric conflicts. First, it shows that civil institutions can change the trajectory of war, even against substantial and technically superior enemies. Second, it uncovers the limitations of traditional military logic in the face of unpredictable grassroots resistance. Acting outside Israel’s calculations – Prioritizing visibility to violence – Lebanese civilians and resistance have achieved things that could not be done with careful war alone.
Ultimately, this episode reaffirms that modern conflict is just as much recognition as they are forced. To win, the resistance movement must be innovated not only tactically but psychologically. Create strategies that disrupt the expectations of the enemy. In southern Lebanon, the refusal to renounce the right of people to return becomes the revocation of occupation, proving that the most powerful weapon in war is often the one that does not see the enemy coming.