January Sees Highest Level of Israeli Airstrikes in Lebanon Since 2024 Ceasefire

The sharp rise in Israeli airstrikes in January 2026 appears to be driven by a combination of unresolved security tensions, disputed interpretations of the ceasefire terms, and continued military activity along the Israel–Lebanon border, according to statements from Israeli officials, Lebanese authorities, and humanitarian observers.

Since the ceasefire took effect on 27 November 2024, Israel has repeatedly stated that its military actions in Lebanon are preventive and defensive in nature, arguing that strikes are aimed at perceived threats linked to Hezbollah infrastructure, weapons movements, or preparations near the border. Israeli officials have maintained that such actions do not violate the ceasefire when they are framed as responses to security risks.

Lebanon, however, disputes this interpretation. The Lebanon government has described the airstrikes as clear violations of its sovereignty and of the ceasefire agreement, reporting more than 2,000 violations in the final three months of 2024 alone. Lebanese authorities say many of the strikes have occurred far from any active hostilities and have affected civilian areas, residential neighbourhoods, and critical infrastructure.

Humanitarian organizations, including the Norwegian Refugee Council, note that the ceasefire lacks effective enforcement mechanisms and has not halted military operations on the ground. NRC and other aid groups report that Israeli ground incursions, drone activity, and aerial surveillance have continued throughout the ceasefire period, creating conditions in which escalation can occur without immediate diplomatic consequence.

Another contributing factor is the absence of progress on reconstruction, border stabilization, and political dialogue since the ceasefire began. Aid agencies say that continued displacement, damaged infrastructure, and the slow pace of recovery have left large areas of south Lebanon highly vulnerable, while persistent military activity increases the likelihood of repeated strikes in the same locations.

Data provided to NRC by Atlas Assistance shows that the January 2026 surge represents not an isolated incident but a steady upward trend following fluctuating levels of airstrikes in the preceding months. While November and December saw a temporary dip after the ceasefire, January’s figures indicate a return to intensified military operations rather than a sustained de-escalation.

Humanitarian groups warn that without stronger international pressure, clearer ceasefire enforcement, and meaningful diplomatic engagement, the current pattern is likely to continue. Aid agencies emphasize that civilians are bearing the consequences of a ceasefire that exists formally but has failed to produce lasting security or stability on the ground.