On Wednesday, October 22, 2025, the uneasy calm along the Lebanese-Israeli border was shattered once again as an Israeli missile struck a motorcycle in the town of Ain Qana, located in the Iqlim Al-Tuffah region of Nabatieh governorate in southern Lebanon. According to Anadolu Agency, the attack killed the driver, a civilian, marking yet another fatal incident in a region where a ceasefire agreement has struggled to take hold.
This latest strike is not an isolated event. Since the ceasefire agreement was brokered on November 27, 2024, Israeli airstrikes in southern Lebanon have continued, raising questions about the effectiveness and durability of the truce. The ceasefire, intended to end the hostilities that erupted after Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli response, was supposed to bring stability to the border region. Instead, as reported by multiple sources including Anadolu Agency and further detailed by regional analysts, violence has persisted in a pattern that many now refer to as a “lessfire”—a truce in name only.
The terms of the November agreement required Israel to halt “offensive” military actions and for Lebanon to prevent armed attacks against Israel, but both sides retained broad rights to act in “self-defense.” As a result, enforcement has been patchy at best. A monitoring group, including representatives from the US, France, Israel, Lebanon, and UN peacekeepers (UNIFIL), can record violations but lacks concrete mechanisms to impose penalties. This lack of teeth has allowed both parties to interpret the agreement in ways that suit their interests, with Israel asserting its right to conduct what it calls preventive strikes against Hezbollah infrastructure and rearming efforts.
According to UNIFIL data cited by regional analysts, from late November 2024 to mid-October 2025, Israel has launched around 950 projectiles and conducted 100 airstrikes into Lebanon. In comparison, Lebanon-based groups have fired only 21 projectiles into Israel during the same period, and Hezbollah has publicly acknowledged just a single attack. The asymmetry is stark, and the consequences for Lebanese civilians have been severe.
Since the ceasefire, Lebanon reports over 270 deaths and 850 injuries from Israeli actions, with the United Nations confirming that at least 107 of those killed were civilians. Notably, no Israelis have died from fire originating in Lebanon during this period. The impact on civilian infrastructure has also been significant. On October 11, 2025, Israeli forces bombed a construction equipment business in southern Lebanon, killing a Syrian bystander, injuring seven others—including two women—and destroying millions of dollars’ worth of heavy machinery. The Israeli military claimed the target was machinery used to rebuild militant infrastructure, but the business owner, Ahmad Tabaja, denied any ties to Hezbollah, stating, “We sell to everyone, from every background. What crime have we committed?”
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun condemned the strike as “a clear act of aggression” on civilian property and, along with Speaker Nabih Berri, accused Israel of attempting to stymie post-war reconstruction. Lebanon filed a formal complaint with the United Nations Security Council, but Israeli strikes continued in the days that followed, including attacks on a cement factory and quarry. Israel maintained these sites were linked to Hezbollah, but local officials and the owners insisted otherwise.
Tragically, civilian casualties have mounted. In September 2025, a particularly deadly strike in Bint Jbeil killed car dealer Shadi Charara, three of his children—including infant twins—a motorcyclist, and wounded Charara’s wife and oldest daughter. Israel claimed the target was a Hezbollah fighter but admitted civilian casualties. Charara’s sister, Amina, spoke out: “My brother and his family were civilians. They had no political ties.” Even when Israel identifies its targets as Hezbollah members, the justification is often disputed. Earlier this month, Israeli forces killed a visually impaired Hezbollah member and his wife, labeling him an air defense official. Hezbollah countered that he was no longer active due to his injuries.
The persistence of violence has eroded what once was a fragile balance of “mutual deterrence.” Hezbollah, backed by Iran and formed in 1982 to resist Israeli occupation, has long been a powerful force in Lebanese and regional politics. Following Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, the group’s military capacity acted as a check on renewed conflict. A month-long war in 2006 ended in a stalemate, ushering in years of tense but relative calm. Yet, as Nicholas Blanford of the Atlantic Council observed, the recent conflict has “significantly weakened Hezbollah’s deterrence capacity,” though the group remains capable of retaliation.
Hezbollah’s current posture is one of measured restraint, at least for now. Senior official Mohammad Fneish stated, “If things escalate, resistance leadership is reviewing the situation, and all options remain on the table.” However, he emphasized that the group is calling on Lebanon’s government to pursue solutions through political and diplomatic channels. This stance reflects both the group’s recognition of its reduced leverage and the broader Lebanese desire to avoid further devastation.
Despite the ceasefire’s shortcomings, there are few signs of imminent change. Mona Yacoubian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies described the situation as a “lessfire,” explaining, “This could be a preview for Gaza, where Israel claims the right to act against perceived threats without fully reigniting war.” The Lebanon ceasefire’s lack of strict boundaries, coupled with the absence of real enforcement, has created a dangerous precedent. As fresh strikes were reported in Gaza following alleged Hamas fire, many analysts and regional observers worry that the fragile truce there could unravel in similar fashion.
Underlying the ongoing violence is a fundamental disagreement about the ceasefire’s intent and application. Israel insists that its actions are necessary to prevent Hezbollah from regrouping and rearming, while Lebanese officials argue that continued strikes only serve to justify Hezbollah’s armed status and undercut efforts to integrate the group into the national defense framework. The result is a cycle of violence that neither side appears willing—or able—to break unilaterally.
For residents of southern Lebanon, the situation is grim. The partial Israeli withdrawal from the region, as mandated by the ceasefire, remains incomplete, with Israeli forces still occupying five border outposts. The constant threat of airstrikes, coupled with the destruction of civilian infrastructure and mounting casualties, has left many feeling trapped in a conflict that defies easy resolution.
The international community, including the United States, France, and the United Nations, has monitored the situation but has so far failed to broker a more robust and enforceable peace. As Mona Yacoubian noted, meaningful change in Lebanon is unlikely without a new US-led diplomatic breakthrough. Meanwhile, the specter of renewed conflict in Gaza looms large, with many fearing that the Lebanese experience offers a troubling preview of what could lie ahead.
The border between Lebanon and Israel remains tense, the ceasefire more aspiration than reality. For those living in its shadow, each new strike is a reminder that peace, for now, remains just out of reach.