Steeped in chaos and conflict, Israel and Hezbollah have agreed on a ceasefire agreement, that took effect on Wednesday 27^th November 2024, after months of cross-border attacks and escalations that brought widespread devastation to south Lebanon and depopulated the border area of Northern Israel. When PM Netanyahu decided to launch a military incursion into Lebanon, he said his main objective was to let over 60,000 Northern Israelis who were displaced due to Hezbollah attacks, return to their homes. However, two months later, he accepted a ceasefire agreement.

What is this Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire agreement, and what does it hold in the future for all parties involved?

What does the agreement entail?

As per the ceasefire agreement (which was indirectly subscribed to by Hezbollah), rooted in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 (which was not subscribed to by Hezbollah), there must be a 60-day halt to the hostilities. The ceasefire therefore technically ends at 10 am on Sunday, 26 January 2025. Southern Lebanon is to be cleared of Armed soldiers of Hezbollah, who will retreat north of the Litani River, and Israel is to withdraw from Lebanon, south of the Blue Line (within the 60 days and not at the outset). The Lebanese Army is to be deployed in the south, between the Litani and Israel’s border, to monitor and maintain the ceasefire, along with the United Nations peacekeeping force that is already present. The agreement also entails the gradual return of displaced residents of both southern Lebanon and northern Israel to their homes. A multinational monitoring group with representatives from the United States (US), France, and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) will oversee compliance.

However, as per reports, the ceasefire has already been violated. Israel has warned Lebanese citizens not to return to their villages, three days into a ceasefire. On December 2, France reported that Israel had already violated the ceasefire 52 times.

A convergence of domestic and international interests

This 13-point agreement between the governments of Israel and Lebanon, which has been brokered by countries such as the United States, is a result of the convergence of interests of various parties involved.

For Israel, both domestic and international politics have been influential. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu said Israel would continue fighting against Hezbollah until its objectives were met, yet Mr Netanyahu accepted the ceasefire. Israel’s troops did not make much territorial gain in Southern Lebanon even after two months of fighting. They have not succeeded in destroying or deterring Hezbollah’s rocket capabilities. Hezbollah has been weakened, not wiped out entirely. Indeed, Israel has lost many soldiers in Southern Lebanon. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) is exhausted after more than a year of war, fighting a two-front war in Gaza and Lebanon. A growing number of Israel’s reservists are not turning up for duty. From the Israel army’s perspective, the war with Lebanon is coming to a point of diminishing return. Reducing active personnel by de-escalating the Lebanon front will be beneficial. Israel’s northern municipalities have been turned into ghost towns, with most of the civilians evacuated further south. Israel’s general public too is tired of conflict and a small majority of them favour a ceasefire with Hezbollah, according to a survey conducted by Israel’s Channel 12. All in all, the situation at home has contributed to making Mr. Netanyahu recalculate his strategy and accept the ceasefire with Lebanon.

While domestic politics has influenced this ceasefire agreement, international politics has had a hand too. The ceasefire helps Israel focus more on Iran, Israel’s major rival in the region. Besides, once the solidarity between Hezbollah and Hamas is broken, it is easier for Israel to isolate Hamas and focus on war at the Gaza front. In addition, the recent arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) may have put additional pressure on Mr. Netanyahu to rethink his strategy.

The role of the United States in brokering the ceasefire agreement is of utmost importance here. The US administration has acted as an effective mediator in the ceasefire agreement, despite Washington being the chief ally of Israel and its main provider of weapons.  For President Joe Biden, this ceasefire is a much-needed diplomatic win after many failed attempts to mediate any breakthrough in the conflict in Gaza. It is a good opportunity for him to end his presidency’s foreign policy on a positive note. This success follows the landmark agreement that was mediated by the US, between Israel and Lebanon regarding their maritime boundaries, in 2022. These agreements demonstrate the US vision for a more secure, stable, and prosperous Middle East, and show the transformative power of American diplomacy.

Trump’s role

The role of Mr. Donald Trump, the new President-Elect of the United States cannot be ignored here and it is his upcoming presidency that has had the greatest influence on shaping Netanyahu’s view. One of the in-laws of the Trump family is Massad Boulos, a Lebanese American businessman, who has now been announced as a senior adviser covering Arab and Middle Eastern affairs in the upcoming Trump administration. He has played an unofficial role in courting the votes of Arab Americans and Muslim votes, dominant especially in swing states such as Michigan, who were fed up with President Biden’s backing of Israel in the ongoing Middle East war. Boulos’ outreach aimed to recast Trump’s image – from someone who was vilifying Muslims and Arabs, to someone who will push and enable peace and stability in the region. Trump garnered votes with the promise of ending the bloodshed in Gaza and the war in Lebanon. This ceasefire has been deliberately paced to buy time for it to work, just in time for Trump’s inauguration as the President of the United States. President-elect Trump has already threatened those holding hostages in the Middle East with unprecedented firepower, if they are not released by the time he enters office on January 20, 2025. Israel sees Trump as a supporter of the Jewish state, and saying no to his demand for stability and peace would be a costly affair.

Previously, Hezbollah had said that a ceasefire would be accepted only after Israel withdraws from Gaza. However, the situation has changed, forcing Hezbollah to accept the ceasefire. The military and political grouping’s thinking needs to be looked into too. The group has been seriously affected by the war with Israel. Its military capabilities have been reduced and its top leaders have been assassinated. It only makes sense that Hezbollah accepts the ceasefire, without making it worse for itself.

For Lebanon, the ceasefire is a step towards peace and stability in the region. The country was already in a poor economic situation, even before the war started. Weeks and months of war have only worsened the economy. In addition, Lebanon is already home to thousands of refugees and has lost more than 3,500 citizens due to strikes by Israel. The conditions in Lebanon are ripe for a sectarian fight, and talks of a civil war returning to the nation are not far-fetched.

For Iran, the ceasefire agreement is a chance to take stock and rebuild Hezbollah, its strongest proxy in the region. It is also a good opportunity for Tehran to build a constructive relationship with Trump’s White House, which may have a more belligerent attitude towards the region and its proxies.

The ceasefire agreement reflects a convergence of regional and global interests, marking a pragmatic step towards reducing immediate hostilities while allowing all parties to recalibrate their strategies for long-term objectives.

What does the future hold?

This ceasefire is fragile and already broken. Israel, more precisely its Prime Minister Netanyahu, believes that military victory in the region is a sure way of being successful. Using unrestrained force and modern technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) assisted weapon systems have become the norm in this quest to alter the balance of power in Israel’s favour. For Israel, this temporary cessation of hostilities will give it time to encourage a potential return of refugees who fled the border areas. It will help Israel regroup, recover and re-strategize against Gaza, rather than fighting on two fronts.

However, Prime Minister Netanyahu might have some tough decisions to make. The upcoming Trump administration would want to bring the ongoing conflict in the Middle East to a stop. This could involve expanding the Abraham Accords, bringing Saudi Arabia on board, and implementing the two-state solution. Involving Saudi Arabia will require an end to the war in Gaza and at least some attempt to establish a Palestine State, all of which is not necessarily in favour of Prime Minister Netanyahu. He may have to choose between agreeing to the demands of Trump’s new administration, without question or doubt, or rejecting Trump and facing uncertain consequences, which may also include international isolation.

For Lebanon, this ceasefire agreement may see a struggle for power and further strife. Hezbollah will try to reassert itself, and other factions may rise to fill the gap. Hezbollah has also been influential in determining the political structure of the country. With no President in sight, a caretaker government in action, and a weakened Hezbollah, the Lebanese politicians need to come together to fill the political vacuum.

Will the ceasefire lead to a permanent deal on peace? The ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel does not necessarily mean that there shall be a similar one between Gaza and Israel. The situation in Gaza goes beyond just border control. It impinges on aspects of Netanyahu’s political survival and his rejection of Palestinian desire for independence. It also does not mean that there shall be permanent peace between Hezbollah and Israel, as already proven by the broken ceasefire. Given that the fundamental opinions and viewpoints of Israel and Hezbollah are different, and that they have not changed despite the gruesome war, it is incorrect to assume that this ceasefire may bring long-lasting peace in the region. It is not of itself the solution, but may only be a pause.

However, the ceasefire has brought temporary calmness to the region. Since the ceasefire agreement and the UN resolution 1701 are not very different, and the latter helped end a major war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006, the ceasefire may bring relative stability in the region, before both parties rebuild their capacities. The ceasefire may also be the right step towards a permanent deal and could serve as a basis for negotiations in the future.