By Robert Inlakesh*
April 22, 2026
All along, this was precisely the scenario that Hezbollah had hoped for, to rope the Israelis in on the ground, in order to eventually inflict enormous losses on them.
Hezbollah has shifted to waging a guerrilla war against the Israeli occupiers in southern Lebanon, reminding Tel Aviv why it decided to withdraw from the country in the year 2000. Instead of allowing Israel to violate the ceasefire unchecked, the responses have been immediate and painful.
On April 16, the White House declared that a 10-Day temporary ceasefire had been reached between Lebanon and Israel. Only the day prior, both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Israel Katz had delivered speeches claiming that their operations in the south of Lebanon would continue to expand.
This caused immense frustration amongst the Israeli public and sparked backlash in the Hebrew-language media.
Sure enough, when the ceasefire went into effect, the Israelis decided to violate the agreement at least 10 times within an hour, mainly through artillery fire on Lebanese villages in the south. This was followed by two drone strikes targeting vehicles in southern Lebanon, in addition to an attack on an ambulance.
Israeli Arabic spokesperson Avrechay Adraee, who was supposed to have retired, yet has made a recent return, openly released a video message ordering displaced Lebanese civilians not to return south of the Litani River area. The occupation forces even bombed the area where efforts were being made to reconstruct a temporary bridge that had been deliberately destroyed during the war to prevent civilian passage into the south.
For a period of time, it had been feared that a return to the pre-March “ceasefire” in Lebanon had just been secured in favor of Tel Aviv once again, where the Israelis carried out frequent operations without any response. All of this as Israel was now occupying more territory illegally, as the Lebanese government negotiated for a normalisation agreement.
Hezbollah Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, then delivered an address, during which he made it clear that the Lebanese leadership was behaving unacceptably and betraying their duties through their normalizing efforts. He also insisted that the previous status quo would not return and that instead his organization would respond to the Israeli violations, fighting until the occupation of South Lebanon was totally abandoned.
Little more than a day into the ceasefire agreement, despite no announcements of retaliatory actions from Hezbollah, a series of “security incidents” were announced by the Israeli Army. The first few were said to have been tanks running over previously planted explosives, making it appear as if the incidents had occurred by accident.
However, three major “security events” occurred, inflicting at least 37 Israeli casualties, 2 of whom the Israelis admitted were deaths. At this point, it had become clear that something else was going on.
Then came an official Hezbollah statement, claiming responsibility for a single incident, where 4 Israeli Merkava tanks were said to have been completely destroyed by pre-planted IEDs, detonating them on an enemy convoy, after Lebanese fighters had been monitoring their movements. After this, the Israeli military decided not to publish any details on the IED attacks.
Yet, Israeli media commentary explained that soldiers, stationed in what is being called a “buffer zone” in southern Lebanon, have reported their frustrations over Hezbollah drones monitoring their movements.
In other words, Hezbollah has cells throughout the territory that Israel claims to be in control of, who do reconnaissance, then calculate the movements of Israeli forces, anticipating their common routes, before planting IEDs that they then detonate on convoys.
Not only is this a transition to asymmetric warfare, which the Iraqi resistance became well known for when fighting an insurgency against US occupying forces, but it is also beginning to usher in flashbacks to the days of the occupation in South Lebanon.
As an example, in 1997, Hezbollah had managed to pull off what was known as the Ansariyeh Ambush, killing 12 Israeli special forces soldiers from its elite Shayetet 13 Unit. This had been carried out through reconnaissance and intelligence work, to anticipate the arrival of the Israeli unit, a total disaster for the Israeli military at the time.
Today, Hezbollah has advanced from what it was in the 1990s and possesses much more sophisticated and powerful weapons. What it means for Israeli forces on the ground is that they must constantly keep moving, as they remain under surveillance and could be subjected to an ambush at any time.
When Israeli tanks travel down roads they have taken a number of times previously, they could suddenly face a series of EIDs. The more these attacks happen, the more terrified the Israeli conscript army’s soldiers become, fearing the possibility that they could at any moment lose an arm, leg, or their life.
Hezbollah, having shifted to such tactics, could also seek to capture Israeli soldiers at one point, something that would represent a catastrophe for the Israeli political leadership.
If such a capture operation succeeds, then Netanyahu’s campaign of triumph will be suddenly transformed into yet another costly operation that will inevitably accelerate on the ground, while eventually forcing him to commit to a prisoner exchange.
All along, this was precisely the scenario that Hezbollah had hoped for, to rope the Israelis in on the ground, in order to eventually inflict enormous losses on them and fulfill the pledge of its former leader, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah that the south will become a graveyard for the invading army and that they will eventually have no tanks left.
* Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.











