After more than a year of war between Israel and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, a ceasefire has been in effect since Wednesday morning. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the militia, which is supported by arch-enemy Iran, with sharp words: “The duration of the ceasefire depends on what happens in Lebanon.” According to US President Joe Biden, the ceasefire was brokered by the USA and France in order to achieve a “permanent cessation of hostilities” in the long term.
Heavy explosions could be heard all over the capital, as a dpa reporter described that night. At 4:00 a.m. the explosions and the thunder of the fighter planes stopped. Hezbollah had also previously continued to fire rockets into northern Israel, where the sirens wailed again.
Hezbollah and Israel should withdraw
According to unconfirmed media reports about the agreement, the Shiite militia will initially withdraw behind the Litani River, about 30 kilometers north of the de facto Israeli-Lebanese border. Israel’s ground troops should then withdraw from Lebanon within 60 days. In order to prevent Hezbollah fighters from returning, soldiers from the Lebanese army, which is not actually involved in the war, will be stationed in the border area parallel to the Israeli withdrawal, a senior US government official reported.
It was said that the US did not negotiate the ceasefire with Hezbollah, but rather with the Lebanese government. They must now take responsibility for what is happening in their country. It is questionable whether it will be able to do this given the weakness of the Lebanese state.
Lebanon’s acting Prime Minister Najib Mikati called for the agreement to be implemented immediately. According to the media, the ceasefire will be monitored by a group of states led by the USA with France, Lebanon, Israel and the UN peacekeeping force UNIFIL, which has been stationed in Lebanon for years.
Netanyahu issues warning to Hezbollah
The monitoring commission should also ensure that the militia does not re-arm itself. Israel claims the right to intervene militarily in Lebanon at any time if Hezbollah breaks the agreement and the Lebanese army and the international group of states fail to act. “With the full consent of the United States, we retain full freedom of military action,” Netanyahu said. “If Hezbollah violates the agreement and tries to arm itself, we will attack.” According to a senior US government official, Lebanon, along with Israel, retains the right to self-defense under international law.
French President Emmanuel Macron spoke of an opportunity for Lebanon. “It is important that this ceasefire is respected and that it is permanent,” Macron said in a video published on X. The agreement supports the country’s sovereignty and heralds “a new beginning for Lebanon,” said US President Biden.
According to Netanyahu, Hamas in the Gaza Strip is now isolated
According to its own statements, Hezbollah has previously fired on Israel in support of the Islamist Hamas in the still embattled Gaza Strip. Hamas triggered the Gaza war with the terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and shelling from Lebanon began shortly afterwards. Originally, Hezbollah, which is allied with Hamas, did not want to end its attacks on Israel until a ceasefire was reached in Gaza. She now apparently waived the fulfillment of this condition.
An end to the war with Hezbollah would leave Hamas isolated in the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu said. “We will increase the pressure on Hamas,” he announced in the evening. This could pave the way to an agreement on the release of around 100 hostages who are still believed to be in the Gaza Strip – although it is unclear how many of them are still alive.
A total of around 12,000 targets in Lebanon bombed
The US has been pushing for a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel for weeks. On the Lebanese side, many villages and neighborhoods were reduced to rubble in attacks by the Israeli army. In total, around 12,000 targets in Lebanon were bombed, the army said.
According to Lebanese information, which cannot be independently verified and makes no distinction between civilians and gunmen, there were more than 3,700 dead and around 15,500 injured. It is estimated that more than 800,000 people were displaced by the fighting in the country, and hundreds of thousands fled to neighboring Syria.
In Israel during the same period, Hezbollah attacks left 76 dead, the majority of them civilians, over 700 injured and extensive property damage. However, Israel’s missile defense intercepted most of the militia’s projectiles. Around 60,000 residents of northern Israel were evacuated.
Lebanese government is considered weak
The agreement now reached is reportedly largely in line with UN Resolution 1701, which unsuccessfully attempted to bring about a permanent end to the violence after the Lebanon War in 2006. An important point of the agreement revolves around the arsenal of Hezbollah, which, according to experts, was one of the strongest paramilitary groups in the world before the war began and which operated in Lebanon like a kind of state within a state for many years. The Lebanese government – currently only acting in office – should monitor all weapons imports into the country and their production on its own territory so that they do not reach Hezbollah or other armed groups. However, it is doubtful whether the relatively weak state will be able to do this.
How might the ceasefire impact the future of Israeli relations with Iran and Hamas?
Interview: Understanding the Ceasefire Between Israel and Hezbollah
Time.news Editor: Welcome to Time.news. Today, we’re diving into the recent ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah after more than a year of conflict. Joining us is Dr. Sarah Malik, an expert in Middle Eastern politics. Thank you for being here, Dr. Malik.
Dr. Sarah Malik: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss such a crucial topic.
Editor: Let’s start with the recent ceasefire. It was brokered by the U.S. and France, but there’s tension still bubbling in the region. Given this, how significant is this ceasefire for both parties?
Dr. Malik: The ceasefire is significant but precarious. For Israel, it offers a moment to regroup and reassess its military strategy while keeping pressure on Hamas in Gaza. For Hezbollah, it may present an opportunity to consolidate power and potentially reposition its forces without the immediate threat of Israeli bombardment. However, Netanyahu’s warning that the ceasefire’s longevity hinges on Hezbollah’s actions indicates that any misstep could quickly reignite hostilities.
Editor: Indeed, Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel retains the right to act militarily if Hezbollah violates the ceasefire. What do you think the implications are for Hezbollah’s operations moving forward?
Dr. Malik: Hezbollah’s operations will likely be deeply influenced by its relationship with both the Lebanese government and Iran. The militia is under significant pressure to show its strength while also needing to adhere to this ceasefire to avoid severe retaliation. The unconfirmed reports about their withdrawal to the Litani River are a tactical maneuver, but it is essential to monitor how they will respond if this ceasefire is tested.
Editor: Reports suggest there is a monitoring commission including the U.S., France, Lebanon, and Israel. How effective do you think this commission can be in maintaining peace?
Dr. Malik: The effectiveness of such a commission is always a point of contention. While they can provide a framework for monitoring and enforcement, two factors are crucial: the political will of the involved parties and their capacity to control their respective armed groups. Lebanon’s weak state structures complicate this, as the government may struggle to assert authority over Hezbollah. If breaches occur, the quickness of the commission’s response will be tested.
Editor: Speaking of Lebanon’s government, acting Prime Minister Najib Mikati has called for an immediate implementation of the ceasefire agreement. Given the historical context, do you believe the Lebanese government is strong enough to enforce this?
Dr. Malik: That’s a complex question. The Lebanese government has historically faced difficulties in asserting authority over non-state actors, particularly Hezbollah. While the prime minister’s call is critical, Lebanon’s institutional weaknesses raise doubts about its ability to enforce any agreements effectively. Watching how Hezbollah and the Lebanese military interact during this ceasefire will be telling.
Editor: With the focus now shifting towards Hamas, Netanyahu has claimed that a ceasefire with Hezbollah could leave Hamas isolated. Do you think this strategic isolation will impact the dynamics in Gaza?
Dr. Malik: Absolutely. Hamas has relied on support from both Iran and Hezbollah. If Hezbollah turns its focus inward due to this ceasefire, it could limit Hamas’ operational capabilities and reinforce its isolation. However, we must also consider how Hamas may respond to assert its relevance. If Hamas perceives it is being abandoned, it could escalate violence in Gaza, further complicating the situation.
Editor: There have been over 12,000 targets in Lebanon bombed during this conflict, resulting in substantial destruction. How do you see the humanitarian impact of this conflict affecting future negotiations?
Dr. Malik: The humanitarian crisis in Lebanon is severe, and the rebuilding process will be long and arduous. A strong public outcry regarding civilian casualties and destruction could pressure the Lebanese government and international community to push for a more durable resolution. However, the reality is that such crises often lead to entrenchment on all sides rather than concessions. International support for reconstruction could play a role in rebuilding trust, but it’s not a guaranteed way to ensure lasting peace.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Malik. It seems that while the ceasefire provides a temporary reprieve, the road to lasting peace in the region will be anything but straightforward.
Dr. Malik: Exactly. Continuous engagement and diplomatic efforts will be essential to navigate this complex landscape. Thank you for having me.
Editor: Thank you for your insights. We’ll keep an eye on how this situation unfolds.