A rumour relayed by the Israeli public channels is circulating insistently around southern Lebanon: there is a coordination between the Lebanese army and Israel via Washington, the United States transmitting instructions to Beirut for evacuation before the advance of Israeli forces in order to avoid a direct confrontation. The wording is cumbersome. She’s not just talking about American mediation. It suggests an operational mechanism between two officially enemy armies. In the current context, such an assertion cannot be repeated without caution.
What makes this rumor credible is that it is based on real facts. Israel announced its intention to impose a buffer zone to the Litani River, to prevent the return of some of the displaced to the south of the river and to destroy the houses of villages near the border. At the same time, Lebanese army withdrawals and repositionings have been reported in southern localities, including in Christian border villages. And the inhabitants live with a very concrete fear: that of the Israeli advance being transformed into a sustainable settlement, with the destruction of houses and the impossibility of returning. But between these facts and the idea of structured coordination between the Lebanese army and Israel via Washington, there remains a step that the available public elements do not yet allow to pass.
Real withdrawals, including around Rmeish
The article must start from there, because it is the ground that feeds the rumor. On Tuesday, local reports reported withdrawals from the Lebanese Army in several southern localities, including in Rmeish. In the international reference sources consulted, the general table is confirmed:The Guardianexplicitly refers to the withdrawal of Lebanese forces from Christian border communities at a time when Israel announces its intention to occupy large parts of southern Lebanon. This is essential because it shows that the question is not theoretical. The withdrawal or withdrawal movement does exist in some sensitive areas.
Rmeish occupies a special place in this context. This Christian border town has already been identified in recent days as one of the villages where the inhabitants were still trying to stay despite the rapid deterioration of the situation. On 23 March, Mayor Hanna Amil explained to Reuters that it was becoming more and more difficult to travel, that Lebanese army convoys sometimes accompanied the inhabitants to pick up basics, and that the lack of electricity, water and diesel raised fears of complete isolation if roads to the north were cut off. In other words, even before the withdrawals reported on Tuesday, Rmeish already lived in a logic of encirclement and anxiety.
This changes the reading of the rumor. When an army withdraws from an area like Rmeish at a time when Israel is talking about a buffer zone, the systematic destruction of border houses and the blocking of the return of displaced persons, many conclude that a message has necessarily circulated upstream. It is precisely on this type of sequence that the idea of coordination via Washington thrives. Rumor is not born in a vacuum. It comes from a land where Lebanese withdrawals and Israeli announcements respond almost in real time.
Fear of the inhabitants directly feeds this reading
The other fact to be included in the article is the very clear fear of the inhabitants in the face of Israeli advances. This fear was nothing short of it. Associated Press reported in recent days that many Lebanese fear a new occupation of the South, as Israel threatens to apply methods already seen in Gaza to Lebanon and push its control to the Litani. The Agency points out that fear is not just about strikes. It also covers the loss of territory, the destruction of villages and the impossibility of returning home.
To this is added the Israeli declaration itself. Israel Katz claimed that approximately 600,000 Lebanese displaced persons would not be allowed to return south of the Litani until security in northern Israel was guaranteed. He also stated that all houses in villages close to the border would be destroyed. These are not marginal formulas. They mechanically produce an immense political and psychological effect in the villages concerned. For a resident of Rmeish, Ain Ebel or another border town, the question is no longer whether the Israeli army will move forward. The question becomes: will there be anything left to find after his passage?
In this context, Lebanese Armed Forces withdrawals are not read as mere tactical adjustments. They are seen locally as a sign that the Israeli advance is taken seriously or even as evidence that it is known in advance. That’s where the coordinating rumor finds its strength. It combines real popular fear, observable military movements and the central role of the United States in all security issues in southern Lebanon.
Why Washington appears at the center of suspicion
The United States does not come up by chance in this rumor. For months Washington has been supporting the deployment of the Lebanese army in the South as a central part of a state security order. The US officials themselves described this deployment as crucial to stability. This means that the United States has a clear interest in preventing direct confrontation between the Lebanese Army and Israel. If the Lebanese army were caught in a frontal confrontation and suffered heavy losses, the entire Western scenario based on its future role in the South would collapse.
From this point of view, the idea of an American de-escalation canal is perfectly plausible. Washington may have an interest in warning Beirut of an imminent danger, in pushing the Lebanese army to reposition itself or pass signals to avoid a direct collision. It is even to some extent consistent with its strategy. But one must be precise: mediation of de-escalation is not automatically structured coordination between the Lebanese army and Israel. There is a major political difference between the two.
In other words, it is credible that Washington seeks to avoid a shock between the two armies. It is not yet publicly demonstrated that it transmits, in an organized and repeated manner, evacuation instructions related to Israeli movements, as the rumour says. This nuance is the heart of the article.
What is confirmed, and what is not
Several facts are now solid. Israel wants to extend its control to Litani. The people of the South fear a new occupation and a lasting destruction of their villages. Lebanese forces withdrew or repositioned in border localities, including Christian villages. And the United States has a clear strategic interest in avoiding direct confrontation between the Lebanese Army and Israel. Taken together, these elements suffice to explain why the rumour seems plausible.
What is still lacking, on the other hand, to talk about coordination between the Lebanese army and Israel via Washington, is a clear public confirmation. At this stage, there is no detailed official validation in the sources consulted by Beirut, Washington or Tel Aviv of a systematic mechanism for transmitting orders or instructions before each Israeli advance. There are also no public details of the interlocutors, channel, frequency or exact form of such exchanges. Without these elements, turning rumours into truth would go too far.
Maybe the real subject is somewhere else.
In essence, perhaps the most important thing is not to know whether coordination already exists in the exact form told by the rumour. The most important thing is to see what this rumor reveals at the moment. It reveals a South Lebanon where the Lebanese army withdraws from certain positions as the Israeli army advances. It reveals villages such as Rmeish where residents fear both bombing, isolation and permanent loss of their homes. It finally reveals an American role so central that many consider it natural to imagine Washington at the heart of a transmission device.
That is precisely why caution is essential. The rumor must not be swept away as absurd. It is based on credible mechanics. Nor should it be presented too quickly as an established fact. In southern Lebanon, withdrawals from the army, fear of the inhabitants and Israeli ambitions are real. It is these facts that must first structure the article, before any heavier conclusion on possible coordination between the Lebanese army and Israel via Washington.
