Lebanon’s militant group Hezbollah and Israel on Thursday mutually accused each other of violating the ceasefire that had come into force just 24 hours earlier. Hezbollah alleged that Israeli forces had fired on civilians, and the Israeli military said its warplanes had struck southern Lebanon after detecting what it described as Hezbollah activity at an alleged rocket storage facility.
The ceasefire, brokered by US President Joe Biden and accepted by both sides, calls for Hezbollah to withdraw north of the Litani River, about 30 kilometres from the Israeli border. Meanwhile, the Israeli military has 60 days to vacate southern Lebanon.
By 4am local time (0200 GMT) on Wednesday, the region experienced a rare calm, with no gunfire or shelling reported in southern Lebanon. Thousands of displaced Lebanese began returning south that same day. But experts noted from the outset that the ceasefire faces significant challenges.
‘Incredibly difficult to implement’
The agreement follows nearly a year of rising hostilities linked to the Gaza war and two months of open warfare between Israel and Hezbollah. International leaders praised the truce, with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calling it “very encouraging news” and Lebanon’s interim Prime Minister Najib Mikati describing it as a “fundamental step” towards stability.
Despite this optimism, analysts remain cautious. This ceasefire “will be incredibly difficult to implement,” said Robert Geist Pinfold, a Middle East security expert from Durham University.
“The most contentious points revolve around the mechanisms for monitoring and implementing this agreement,” said Filippo Dionigi, a specialist in Hezbollah at the University of Bristol in England.
A multinational commission, including the United States and France, is in charge of overseeing the ceasefire alongside the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Both the Lebanese army and UNIFIL will be tasked with restoring order in case of violations. The Lebanese army on Thursday accused Israel of having violated the ceasefire “several times” with both air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon.
Trust issues
One major challenge lies in Lebanon’s military capacity.
“The Lebanese armed forces (LAF), which are expected to enforce critical aspects of the agreement, such as overseeing weapon production and sales in southern Lebanon, have proven incapable of confronting Hezbollah for decades,” said Shir Mor, an Israeli security expert at the International Team for the Study of Security (ITSS) Verona.
Israel has little confidence in the ability of the Lebanese military forces to do much better this time.
“It must be said that the expectations are a little too high compared to what they can realistically do,” said Ahron Bregman, a political scientist at King’s College London. “The army is underpaid, under-equipped, and its training is limited,” Dionigi added.
UNIFIL also faces scrutiny due to its less-than-favourable reputation in Tel Aviv. The peacekeeping force was tasked with enforcing the 2006 ceasefire, which included provisions for Hezbollah’s disarmament in southern Lebanon.
“We know that after 2006, Hezbollah not only maintained its military capabilities but even significantly strengthened them,” Mor said.
Read moreUN Resolution 1701 is the linchpin of the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire. Will it hold?
To address these concerns, the agreement includes a unilateral intervention clause which allows Israel to act independently if it perceives a direct threat to its security.
“This is problematic for Lebanon, which has opposed this from the beginning of negotiations because it’s a matter of national sovereignty,” Dionigi explained.
Political roadblocks
Decisions about what constitutes a direct threat to Israeli security will play a critical role in the ceasefire’s viability. According to Dionigi, there are two possible scenarios: Israel may rely on information from ceasefire stakeholders, such as UNIFIL, or it could act independently, guided solely by its intelligence services.
The risk, as Pinfold explains, is that “Hezbollah will test the agreement [by bringing weapons from Iran, building tunnels, etc.], and Israel will react, probably through airstrikes inside Lebanon”.
“This, however, will only serve to undermine the agreement, because the Lebanese public won’t accept persistent attacks by Israel inside Lebanese territory that will inevitably cause civilian casualties and disrupt daily life there,” he said.
For Pinfold, another obstacle is the Israeli government itself.
“There is pressure inside Netanyahu’s cabinet from far-right ministers to continue the war,” he said. “This means that there may be a ceasefire in Lebanon, but it’s unlikely to lead to a cessation of hostilities on all fronts, such as Gaza and the West Bank. This, in turn, makes it more likely that Lebanon will get dragged into another conflict.”
Uncertain future
As accusations of ceasefire violations fly between Israel and Hezbollah, the truce’s future appears increasingly precarious. While Biden claimed that the agreement was “designed to permanently end hostilities” between Israel and Hezbollah, doubts about its longevity have emerged.
“A ceasefire will collapse the moment either party sees it as no longer serving their interests,” Bregman said.
Initially, both sides seemed committed to the truce for practical reasons. Hezbollah’s military capabilities have been significantly weakened, and the Iran-backed militia needs time to recover.
“This group never wanted a conflict of such intensity with Israel,” Dionigi said.
Israel, too, had reasons to pause. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cited the need to regroup as one of the reasons for agreeing to the ceasefire. Moreover, Netanyahu had promised to allow the more than 60,000 Israelis evacuated from the border region to return home – a promise impossible to fulfill if fighting continues.
Watch moreDid France backtrack on Netanyahu arrest warrant in exchange for Israel-Lebanon ceasefire?
But Mor argued that “the current ceasefire does not provide sufficient security guarantees for residents of northern Israel to return to their homes”. This shortfall, she added, is why the ceasefire is unlikely to endure since, in the eyes of the Israeli government, “the war objectives [ensuring the safe return of northern residents] are far from complete”.
Experts also fear Hezbollah will not accept this situation in the long term.
“Southern Lebanon is their key power base and they have significant support there from the region’s civilians,” Pinfold said. “I can’t imagine a scenario where Hezbollah will leave this region for good.”
With mistrust on both sides and unresolved security concerns, the ceasefire’s durability remains in serious question.
This article has been translated from the original in French by Anaelle Jonah.
Leave a Comment