The Israeli flag has flown over Fort Beaufort in southern Lebanon since the weekend. Despite a partial ceasefire agreement, fighting is continuing between the Israeli military and the Iran-aligned Shiite Hezbollah militia — which is designated as a terror organization by the United States, Germany and several Sunni Arab governments — in southern Lebanon.

A trip to Lebanon by German Development Minister Reem Alabali Radovan was cut short at the last minute because of the deteriorating security situation.

Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz had ordered strikes on "terror targets" in what they said was a Hezbollah stronghold in the southern suburbs of Beirut. The Israeli government claimed that the strikes were in response to repeated violations of the ceasefire.

Meanwhile,Iran said Israel's actions were delaying the possibility of a ceasefire agreement with the US. Media outlets reported that people were once again fleeing the southern suburbs of Beirut; Lebanese President Joseph Aoun condemned the "brutal Israeli aggression."

According to Lebanese authorities, more than 3,400 people have been killed since March 2, while on the Israeli side, 24 soldiers and four civilians have been killed, according to the military.

'You can feel the tension'

Merin Abbass, the head of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation's office in Beirut, described the tense situation, saying that despite an official ceasefire, the conflict was ongoing. "As of today, there have also been specific threats to bomb the southern suburbs of Beirut. The first evacuations have already taken place. You can feel the tension," he told DW.

The escalation raises a key question: What does Israel hope to achieve with its military action? Officially, it claims that its goal is to weaken and ultimately disarm Hezbollah, whose rocket and drone attacks on northern Israel continue, it says, to pose an immediate threat.

Abbass said that the Israeli government is facing political pressure: "Within Israel, there is significant criticism that the fight against Hezbollah is not being waged with sufficient resolve." He said that Israel's advance north of the Litani River in Lebanon showed that, from Israel's perspective, the strategy pursued so far had not been sufficient.

Jan Wilkens, a Middle East expert at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA) in Hamburg, also believes that the aim is to weaken Hezbollah in military terms.

But he told DW that Israel's offensive would have political costs: "From the perspective of international law, we continue to see a fundamental breach of state sovereignty."

Undermining state institutions in Lebanon

Some analysts are increasingly concerned that Israel's actions are indeed weakening the forces in Lebanon that are committed to a political solution. The Center for Strategic and International Studies(CSIS) has warned that Israel's current attacks could undermine state institutions in Lebanon and thereby indirectly bolster Hezbollah's argument that only armed resistance can guarantee security.

Wilkens argued that the offensive had limited the Lebanese government's room for maneuver. "The more Israel tries to impose a unilateral solution on Lebanon, the more the grounds for a long-term agreement that all sides can live with shrink."

Abbass from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation said that the core of the problem lay in the fundamental asymmetry of the situation. "On the one hand, there is a very strong Israel in military terms, and on the other, there is a comparatively weak Lebanese state."

While Israel insisted, he said, on continuing the fight against Hezbollah, the government in Beirut, which has little influence over Hezbollah, called for the ceasefire to be maintained and for the return of displaced people. "Since the talks began, these positions have hardly changed," Abbass said.

Furthermore, he said, Hezbollah itself had little interest in the talks. Its ongoing rocket and drone attacks on northern Israel could also be seen as an attempt to sabotage the diplomatic process.

Wilkens argued that there was an increased risk that the talks would serve to cement military realities in political terms. Israel's advance, he said, was "reducing the room for negotiating a broad, consensus-based solution."

US plays a key role

The role of the US, as Israel's most important ally and also the only external power with significant influence over both sides, is key in this conflict.

The pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy has argued that Hezbollah should be disarmed gradually and there should be more support for the Lebanese Armed Forces. It has also been suggested that Washington could help Beirut and Jerusalem "to launch negotiations to advance both the disarmament of Hezbollah and the achievement of bilateral peace."

For Abbass, the fact that military pressure alone will not bring about a solution is key. "One should understand that Israel wants to protect its population and defend itself," he said. "At the same time, in my view, the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods in the Lebanese capital would be disproportionate."

'Entire cities and villages are being destroyed'

Wilkens stressed that de-escalation was still possible, but only if the violence ended. "Hezbollah must cease its military operations, and at the same time, Israel must withdraw from Lebanese territory." Only then could a foundation for viable negotiations be established, he said.

Abbass argued that there should be more international pressure. "When entire cities and villages are being destroyed, it does not suffice to simply express concern. What is needed are much clearer political responses."

This article was translated from German.