The announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, effective from 4:00 am today, marks a critical juncture in the ongoing conflict. While the agreement provides a temporary halt to hostilities, it falls short of a comprehensive peace settlement.
The 60-day ceasefire includes a commitment from Israel to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon, yet the broader implications and potential consequences of this accord are the subject of intense debate.
This ceasefire, brokered with international mediation primarily from the United States and France, reflects the complexities of balancing immediate security needs against long-term regional stability.
For Israel, the decision to accept these terms was influenced by mounting pressure from the current US administration, which holds significant sway over Israel’s security dynamics.
The provisions of the agreement aim to halt all offensive operations by both parties, ensuring a cessation of violence along the Israel-Lebanon border.
However, the history of similar accords raises doubts about the enforceability of these terms. Hezbollah, a heavily armed militia and a proxy for Iran, has consistently used lulls in fighting to regroup and rearm. Reports already suggest that Hezbollah fighters are returning to southern Lebanon under the guise of civilian refugees, a situation that complicates the fragile peace.
One of the agreement’s cornerstone provisions is the reaffirmation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which was introduced following the Second Lebanon War in 2006. The resolution called for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the establishment of Lebanese state authority in southern Lebanon.
However, over the past 18 years, these objectives have remained unfulfilled, largely due to Lebanon’s limited governance capacity and Hezbollah’s entrenched influence. This pattern of inaction casts significant doubt on whether the current agreement will yield different results.
Domestically, the ceasefire has sparked polarising opinions in Israel. Critics argue that the agreement undermines Israeli security by giving Hezbollah the opportunity to rebuild its infrastructure and arsenal. They view the ceasefire as a concession that fails to capitalise on the momentum gained by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during recent operations.
Supporters, however, highlight the operational strain on Israeli forces after more than a year of intense conflict. Israel’s predominantly reservist army has faced significant challenges, including exhaustion among personnel and the wear and tear on equipment. For many, the ceasefire is seen as a necessary reprieve to regroup and prepare for future engagements.
The international dimension of this agreement cannot be overlooked. Both the United States and France have sought to stabilise the region by leveraging their influence over the parties involved. While their mediation underscores the global importance of maintaining peace in the Middle East, the long-standing dynamics of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict suggest that external interventions alone are insufficient. Hezbollah remains a central player in Lebanon, and its connections to Iran ensure that regional geopolitics will continue to complicate any sustainable resolution.
Iran, for its part, has already characterised the ceasefire as a ‘glorious victory’ for Hezbollah, framing it as evidence of Israeli vulnerability. This narrative bolsters Tehran’s image among its regional allies, potentially emboldening further provocations. Yet, it also highlights a key Israeli concern: that failing to decisively weaken Hezbollah could lead to another round of conflict within a decade, with the militia more heavily armed and fortified than ever before.
Another significant aspect of the agreement is its provision for international oversight. A joint committee involving representatives from Israel, Lebanon, and external actors is tasked with monitoring compliance. However, the practicalities of enforcement remain murky. Past experience with international peacekeeping efforts in southern Lebanon has shown that such mechanisms are often limited in their ability to address violations effectively. Hezbollah’s ability to operate with impunity in UN-patrolled areas exemplifies the challenges of implementing these provisions on the ground.
Despite its flaws, the ceasefire offers an opportunity to address immediate humanitarian concerns and reduce the toll of violence on civilians. Refugees are already beginning to return to their homes in southern Lebanon, although the absence of both Lebanese military forces and UN peacekeepers raises concerns about security and governance in these areas. The sight of displaced families returning to destroyed or insecure villages underscores the urgency of finding a more durable solution.
Read also:
Israel Launches Ground Operation in Southern Lebanon: What Lies Ahead
