The long-awaited ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon has officially come into effect. According to published reports, the agreement outlines a transitional period of 60 days during which the Israeli army will withdraw from southern Lebanon. Concurrently, the Lebanese army will be deployed near the border, while Hezbollah is set to relocate its heavy weapons north of the Litani River.
In the hours leading up to the ceasefire, Hezbollah missiles targeted major Israeli cities as Israeli aircraft launched strikes on remaining Hezbollah leaders in southern Lebanon. With traditional military targets exhausted, Israel shifted to attacking mixed areas, aiming to maintain negotiation leverage and extend its presence in southern Lebanon for four weeks post-signing. This strategy seeks to establish a new reality under international oversight, emphasizing significant changes in UNIFIL’s operational mechanisms.
Israel’s urgency in reaching an agreement is tied to fears of losing U.S. mediation. Washington has warned it might allow Security Council resolutions against Israel to pass without a veto, which could result in political and economic repercussions. Domestically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces pressure from extremists who argue that failing to achieve concrete results risks accusations of falling into a “Lebanese trap.” The Israeli group “Reservists – Generation of Victory,” composed of military leaders and reservists, opposes the ceasefire, asserting it allows Hezbollah to regroup and possibly spark future conflict.
Netanyahu sees this moment as an opportunity to pursue multiple objectives, supported by a new U.S. administration eager for Middle East peace and aligned with his personal vision. He aims to leverage regional tensions to advance a broader arrangement, including potential agreements involving Syria. However, Hezbollah opposes such moves, fearing any deal with Damascus could sever Iranian support, jeopardizing its political and military survival.
The ratified agreement establishes a 60-day ceasefire, during which the Israeli army will withdraw from southern villages in three phases. In return, the Lebanese army will deploy in the south, and Hezbollah will retreat 10 kilometers beyond the Litani River. A five-member committee, including representatives from Lebanon, Israel, the U.S., France, and UNIFIL, will oversee compliance and prevent weapons from reaching Hezbollah. If all terms are met, the agreement will be finalized, with provisions for Israel to respond to immediate threats from Lebanon.
This ceasefire offers Lebanon a chance to regain stability, free from illusions of victory and narratives that have long burdened its people.
Since the mid-1980s, Lebanon has served as a proxy battleground for Iran and Israel, a focal point in their regional rivalry. It is central to Iran’s “unity of arenas” strategy, which extends to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen. Framed as resistance to Israeli occupation, Iran has invested billions in Lebanon, bolstering Hezbollah’s military and infrastructural capabilities, particularly among the Shiite population in southern Lebanon and Beirut’s suburbs. This investment has allowed Hezbollah to dominate Lebanese politics and weaken the national military.
Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon extends beyond its military presence. The group’s involvement in regional conflicts, especially in Syria, has provoked internal discontent. Its use of force and political power to maintain its interests has contributed to Lebanon’s ongoing instability.
Since 8 October 2023, when Hassan Nasrallah announced a war against Tel Aviv in solidarity with Gaza, Lebanon has faced unprecedented Israeli attacks. These strikes have inflicted severe humanitarian and economic damage, raising fears of civil war. The weakened state of Hezbollah presents a potential opening for Lebanese factions to diminish its control and reduce Iran’s influence on Lebanon’s political decisions. The current negotiations and the presidential election are seen by some as opportunities to shift the power balance.
Hezbollah’s acceptance of the ceasefire, even before the assassination of its Secretary-General, signals internal pressures. Following this, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, representing Hezbollah, indicated willingness to implement UN Resolution 1701, which emphasizes respect for Lebanese-Israeli borders, cessation of hostilities, and Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon. However, the group’s political and military influence remains deeply embedded in Lebanon, and a complete withdrawal could create a power vacuum, potentially leading to new conflicts.
Despite Hezbollah’s significant losses, including personnel and infrastructure, it retains a strong political presence and a network of NGOs providing social services. A new generation of leaders, shaped by experiences in Syria, is emerging within the organization, focusing on fostering a “Resistance Society.”
The ceasefire agreement offers benefits to Israel, including the avoidance of international sanctions and the ability to focus on Gaza. For Lebanon, the agreement could provide an opportunity to revive political institutions and reduce Hezbollah’s influence. However, the military threat to northern Israel persists, and Hezbollah’s military structure remains intact, albeit restricted.
The path to a stable future for Lebanon is fraught with challenges. Many of its current leaders are tied to the Lebanese Civil War, and sectarian divisions remain a significant obstacle. Any lasting resolution will require the participation of all societal segments, including Hezbollah. Excluding the Shiite community from political decisions risks alienation and potential unrest, echoing the chaos of the 1980s. A consensus among Lebanese factions is essential for stability, leaving it up to the people to decide whether this agreement marks the beginning of lasting peace or merely a temporary pause in the conflict.
Dr. Hatem Sadek – Professor at Helwan University
