X Close

Is Israel’s ceasefire letting Hezbollah off the hook?

Netanyahu claimed that Israel's army needed a 'breather'. Credit: Getty

November 27, 2024 - 7:00am

The ceasefire announced between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon enters into force today. It does, however, contain several flaws.

The key problem is enforcement. The framework for this ceasefire is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the previous Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006. The Resolution said there would be a 12-mile zone between the “Blue Line” (Israel-Lebanon border) and the Litani River that was “free of any armed personnel, assets, and weapons other than” those of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).

Resolution 1701 also called for the “full implementation of the […] Taif Accords”, which ended the Lebanese Civil War in 1989 and “require[d] the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon”. This was clearly a reference to Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

The premise of Resolution 1701 was ludicrous: there is no LAF to fill a vacuum left by Hezbollah. The LAF is an agglomeration of hostile sectarian militias, partly created and thoroughly infiltrated by the IRGC. As for UNIFIL, it was at best indifferent as Hezbollah built up its bases and forces along the Israeli border over the last 18 years.

The current ceasefire deal has set a 60-day timetable for Israel’s troops to fully withdraw from southern Lebanon. After that period, the vacated territory is supposed to be patrolled by UNIFIL and the LAF, with Hezbollah pulling back north of the Litani, and all non-official groups to be disarmed and dismantled in due course.

This time, the only new aspect is the introduction of an international “committee”, including the United States and France, to monitor implementation. Israel has protested against French involvement because of the country’s longstanding relationship with Lebanon. But the larger problem is that there is no force on the ground able and actually willing to compel Hezbollah’s compliance so, committee or not, this is a replica of the situation created by Resolution 1701.

Some Israeli commentators have argued that since Israel has bested Hezbollah, the threat from the group has been neutralised: the cost of continuing the war to finish Hezbollah entirely outweighs the benefit. There is some truth to this, and it is probably correct to say that the total elimination of Hezbollah is impossible. But the problem is that Hezbollah is not yet neutralised — in just the last few days, the terrorist group has fired hundreds of missiles into Israel. The key Israeli war aim in Lebanon was to degrade Hezbollah to the point that it was safe for the 70,000 displaced Israelis in the north to return. How many of them will realistically come back?

It is an open question whether these terms can sustain a ceasefire even for the 60 days needed for the first phase of implementation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in his statement last night that one of the reasons he agreed to this ceasefire was to allow his country’s army a “breather”, and that might well be the deal’s main practical effect. In the meantime, Netanyahu is now on surer political footing, appearing cooperative in advancing a ceasefire that both President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump want. What’s more, he has secured Biden’s public support for Israel’s right to self-defence if and when Hezbollah violates the deal.


Kyle Orton is an independent terrorism analyst. He tweets at @KyleWOrton

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

10 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Derek Smith
Derek Smith
14 days ago

“The current ceasefire deal has set a 60-day timetable for Israel’s troops to fully withdraw from southern Lebanon. After that period, the vacated territory is supposed to be patrolled by UNIFIL and the LAF, with Hezbollah pulling back north of the Litani, and all non-official groups to be disarmed and dismantled in due course.”

So doing the same thing again, and expecting a different outcome. Yes, this time it will work. Honest.

Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
13 days ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

While I think you’re absolutely spot on. The IDF, which is very much a citizen army, has been hard used over the last year. Even the best need a break for the girdling of loins and catching a breath. Armies, in combat, operate tired, it’s the nature of the beast. That creates mistakes, people die. It’s a balance, but increasing casualties now, many stupid or blue on blue, against the inevitable casualties when fighting resumes. It’s a shit choice, and I’m glad I was never in a position that it was up to me.

Brett H
Brett H
14 days ago

I’m sure Israel knows exactly what this means and is prepared for the inevitable outcome.

Josef Švejk
Josef Švejk
14 days ago

Looking at the ceasefire as it relates to the area north of the Litani River it does put more Lebanese Christians at risk in the rest of Lebanon. Hizbolah conduct a holy war against all and any who don’t agree with their specific route to heaven.

Chris Whybrow
Chris Whybrow
14 days ago
Reply to  Josef Švejk

Given that the civil war ended several decades ago and they have never staged a coup to establish an Iranian style state despite the fact that they easily could, I don’t think that’s true. I don’t like them, what they did in Syria was reprehensible, but they aren’t going to attack the other Lebanese.

John Tyler
John Tyler
13 days ago

“ Biden’s public support for Israel’s right to self-defence if and when Hezbollah violates the deal.”

Biden’s support? Hardly a trustworthy supporter! What did USA and UK do when Russia seized Crimea? Ignored their promises. What have we been trying to do in Gaza? Save Hamas.

El Uro
El Uro
13 days ago
Reply to  John Tyler

This administration is a symbol of failure and betrayal, and if we are talking about the West as a whole, it has already capitulated to the “religion of peace”.

Chris Whybrow
Chris Whybrow
14 days ago

So is this the third or the fourth time that Israel has been kicked out of Lebanon? I’ve lost count.

Ian Barton
Ian Barton
13 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

Why do you ask ?

Danny Kaye
Danny Kaye
13 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

“Kicked out of Lebanon” presupposes that Israel ever wanted to stay in Lebanon, rather than preventing Lebanon from attacking Israel. That supposition is laughably false.
The truth is that for many years, the border between Israel and Lebanon was called “the good fence”, and there was a traffic of Lebanese visiting Israel. The saying then was that Lebanon was too weak to be the first Arab country to declare peace with Israel, but that it would be the second. However the takeover of South Lebanon by the PLO, and subsequently by Iran via Hezbollah, put an end to that dream.
The cease-fire negotiated under the aegis of Biden ans Macron does, unfortunately, leaves Hezbollah in place as a nefarious actor in Lebanon. Still, the prospect of a future peace between the countries is a bit less remote than it was just 2 months ago.