The clock is quickly ticking down on the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire deal. The US-brokered accord gave 60 days for Hezbollah to end its armed presence in southern Lebanon and for Israeli forces to withdraw from the area, with thousands of Lebanese troops deployed to fill their positions.
In a mere ten days, on 26 January, the deal is due to expire. With time running out, and neither side fully abiding by the deal’s terms, analysts say Israel may remain in south Lebanon longer than they had previously agreed.
“It’s a very fragile situation because [the ceasefire] is not being implemented fully, neither by Israel nor by Hezbollah,” Sami Nader, the director of the Political Sciences Institute at Saint Joseph University of Beirut, told The New Arab.
“Hezbollah did not withdraw swiftly, nor did Israel, as well,” he said.
Israel has so far only withdrawn from two Lebanese villages and has troops stationed in some 60 others, where it has forbidden civilians from returning. Lebanese authorities have reported more than 470 Israeli violations of the ceasefire, which have killed 32 people and injured 39 others.
On Monday, Israeli bombs rained down on south Lebanon. The Israeli army said its attacks were against Hezbollah military infrastructure, “threats” they said were left “unaddressed”. At the onset of the truce, the Israelis pledged to aggressively respond to a breach of any of the ceasefire’s terms.
“The chances are high that the [Israelis] will eventually withdraw, but whether they will do it by 26 January, is debatable,” Randa Slim, a fellow with Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute, told TNA.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah has not launched attacks across the border since the deal went into effect, but its patience is growing thin.
“Our patience is linked to when we deem the time to be right; it is the Resistance’s leadership that decides whether to remain patient, initiate an attack, or respond,” Hezbollah’s leader, Naim Qassem, said in a speech on 4 January.
“There is no specific timetable that determines the Resistance’s performance, whether through the agreement or after the 60 days or up.”
|
|
Hezbollah at ‘weakest point’
Hezbollah has been dealt a series of heavy blows in the past few months. Fourteen months of Israeli strikes wiped out its top leadership and destroyed much of its heavy arsenal and military infrastructure. The group also lost one of its key allies, Bashar Al-Assad, along with its critical land routes for its weapons and cash flow when Syrian rebels toppled the regime.
“This is a party that’s really at its weakest point,” Slim said, “They’ve never experienced anything like that, ever in history.”
In turn, Hezbollah’s iron grip on Lebanon’s political scene has loosened – evident when their presidential candidate withdrew from the race, paving the way for the election of Joseph Aoun on 9 January, backed by Hezbollah’s foes, the US and Saudi Arabia.
Aoun has vowed to keep arms out of non-state groups, like Hezbollah, and enforce the terms of UN Resolution 1701 – the foundation of the current ceasefire – which mandates Lebanese military and security forces as the only bodies authorised to have weapons south of the Litani River.
“Hezbollah’s main claim to reconstituting themselves, keeping a shred of their popularity inside the community is to help it rebuild,” Slim said. “They will need the state, they will need Joseph Aoun to help them rebuild these communities.”
The World Bank has estimated the cost of physical damages and economic losses due to the war in Lebanon at $8.5 billion. Although the estimated losses are nearly three times greater than after the 34-day war between Lebanon and Hezbollah in 2006, aid has so far just trickled in.
“[Aoun] has the trust of the Arab countries and the international community – he can rely on wide international support – this is unprecedented, and one can use this as leverage to implement this [ceasefire] agreement,” Nader, with the Beirut-based Political Sciences Institute, said.
Nader also spoke to Aoun’s ability and expertise as Lebanon’s former army commander to attract more support for the Lebanese army and enforce the terms of the ceasefire. “The new president knows this agreement very well, he was in charge of implementing it,” he said.
Ceasefire deal extended?
Israeli officials have expressed doubt over the Lebanese army’s ability to supervise Hezbollah’s disarmament, and multiple Israeli news reports have stated their intention to stay past the 60-day period.
“The further implementation of the [ceasefire] deal may require some flexibility,” Nimrod Goren, the president of Mitvim, the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies, told TNA. “It may be prolonged for several weeks… After 60 days, [the Israeli army] may say, ‘We need more time’,” he said.
The Israeli newspaper, the Jerusalem Post, reported on 5 January that Israeli and American efforts were underway to extend the 60-day ceasefire with Hezbollah.
An Israeli official interviewed in the report said: “Unless there is a huge surprise, the Lebanese Army won’t be able to deploy fully during the 60-day ceasefire, which means Israel will have to stay”.
Goren said that Israel’s flexibility in prolonging its withdrawal would depend largely on the messages it gets from Washington.
During a visit to Lebanon on 7 January, US envoy Amos Hochstein said that Israeli forces would continue to pull out from Lebanon, without specifying when their withdrawal would be complete.
Ori Goldberg, an Israeli political analyst and academic, told TNA that he expected the incoming Trump administration to pressure the Israelis to abide by the terms of the ceasefire.
“If there’s one place the Trump administration would expect Israel to adhere to its commitments as much as possible, it would be Lebanon,” he noted.
Bombing might stop, but not the shooting
Unlike Gaza and Syria – where Israeli troops have announced their intention to remain stationed – analysts say Israel is unlikely to permanently occupy south Lebanon, even if they stay beyond the time outlined in the ceasefire deal.
“[Israel’s actions] in Lebanon are less ideological, it’s more about security, practical concerns, whether the arrangement can work and safeguard the security of the people,” Goren said.
While several of Israel’s ministers have repeatedly and loudly endorsed the settlement of the Gaza Strip, the ideological calls to occupy and settle southern Lebanon come from smaller, far-right groups in the fringes of Israeli society and outside of Israel’s security and diplomatic establishment, Goren noted.
“There’s a good chance Israel will stand by the great majority of its commitments – remembering that it has already destroyed some 40 villages on the border,” Goldberg added.
|
|
The Israeli army has razed 37 villages in southern Lebanon and destroyed more than 40,000 housing units in an area three kilometres deep along the border, according to Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA). Residents of the Lebanese border village, Naqoura, said that the Israelis had carried out “retaliatory acts aimed at destruction”, including demolishing roads and sidewalks, before they withdrew from the village.
Israel will likely stop large-scale attacks along the border and will not hold onto territory or install permanent military infrastructure but could continue low-intensity military operations. “Israel might stop bombing, but it’s not going to stop shooting at people, Israel’s been doing that long before 8 October 2023,” Goldberg said.
Israel would not define these operations as part of a “south Lebanon buffer zone,” Goldberg said, nor would Israel see them as a violation of the ceasefire deal, or be held accountable.
“Israelis wouldn’t see this as a violation of the ceasefire, and I doubt new president Aoun would confront Israel about it, considering his strong American support,” he said.
Israel is largely taking a “pragmatic” approach to Lebanon, Goldberg added, but “what Israel thinks is pragmatic, is rightfully seen by Lebanese as incredibly violent, aggressive, and hostile”.
Hezbollah disarmament contingent on Israel’s withdrawal
Further down the road, Slim, with the Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute, said Lebanon could work toward incorporating Hezbollah under its national defence strategy, within its Ministry of Defence.
“Lebanon has a golden opportunity to solve the issue of weapons outside the state’s control, and bring them into the state’s hands,” Slim said.
However, the success of Hezbollah’s eventual disarmament hinges on Israel’s withdrawal from the south.
“Without the Israelis withdrawing, then we are back to needing to have resistance to fight the Israeli occupier. As long as they are in the country, this narrative remains viable,” she said.
“The entire objective of disarming Hezbollah and bringing it under the umbrella of state institutions would all be pushed aside if Israel does not withdraw completely from Lebanon.”
Hanna Davis is a freelance journalist reporting on politics, foreign policy, and humanitarian affairs.
Follow her on Twitter: @hannadavis341
