The cease-fire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon on Tuesday marks a significant development in the region, but the details—and the potential consequences—remain unclear. The deal, as currently understood, mandates an immediate cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, followed by a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces over the next 60 days, beginning no later than December 6. However, critical questions about the enforcement of this agreement linger, particularly regarding who will police the contested territory between the Israeli border and the Litani River, an area from which Hezbollah forces have been expelled.
The Plan for Southern Lebanon
Reports indicate that southern Lebanon will be patrolled jointly by Lebanese forces and United Nations peacekeepers under the terms of the deal. CBS News adds that earlier proposals suggested the formation of a multi-nation committee, potentially including the U.S. and France, to monitor compliance. French involvement, however, faces complications. The Emmanuel Macron government has pledged to enforce an International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a commitment strongly opposed by Israel.
This plan to ensure peace is inherently problematic. Hezbollah, the primary target of Israeli military operations, is a distinct terrorist entity operating independently of the Lebanese government, which has little influence over its activities. Israel's military campaign was designed to degrade Hezbollah’s capacity to strike across the border and to allow tens of thousands of Israelis displaced by rocket and mortar fire to return home.
Yet, the deal frames Hezbollah as a third-party actor, requiring it to move its armed presence and heavy weaponry north of the Litani River. Such provisions echo the unenforced mandates of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which similarly banned armed groups south of the Litani but failed to disarm Hezbollah. As Hezbollah official Hassan Fadlallah’s recent comments suggest, the group views this arrangement as a mere interlude in its activities rather than a defeat.
Skepticism in Israel
In Israel, critics are expressing deep concerns about the agreement’s implications. Opposition leader Benny Gantz has warned that the withdrawal of Israeli forces will allow Hezbollah to regroup. Gabi Naaman, head of a council representing northern Israeli towns, and Eitan Davidi, another regional leader, have echoed these sentiments, decrying a perceived failure to safeguard Israeli residents. Prominent journalist Yossi Yehoshua has described the agreement as a missed opportunity, calling it “not a victory and certainly not a complete victory.”
These critiques reflect a growing unease about the Netanyahu government’s strategy. After a successful military campaign that placed Hezbollah under significant pressure, the cease-fire is seen by some as a premature concession, granting the terrorist organization an opportunity to recover.
A Fragile Political Balance
Despite the criticism, the Netanyahu government appears politically stable for now. Analysts suggest that the agreement might even represent a minor political victory for Netanyahu, as it averts prolonged conflict without immediately jeopardizing his leadership. However, the long-term consequences of this cease-fire—both for Israel’s security and for Netanyahu’s government—remain uncertain.
Conclusion
The cease-fire agreement between Israel and Lebanon is fraught with ambiguity and risk. While it offers a temporary respite from hostilities, its reliance on mechanisms and resolutions that have historically failed raises questions about its enforceability and effectiveness. For Israel, the deal represents a gamble: a hope that diplomacy can succeed where force has temporarily paused, but a risk that Hezbollah will rearm and return to the border, potentially stronger than before. As the situation unfolds, the region—and the world—will watch closely to see if this fragile peace can hold.
.jpg)
