 |
|
The recent ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, brokered with the involvement of the US and France, presents a complex and precarious situation in the Middle East. While the deal brings temporary relief to the citizens of southern Lebanon who have endured weeks of intense Israeli airstrikes, the underlying concerns regarding Hezbollah's commitment and the enforceability of the agreement remain substantial. The ceasefire, effective November 27th, stipulates the deployment of the Lebanese army in areas currently controlled by Hezbollah over the next 60 days, with a concurrent Israeli withdrawal. Hezbollah is expected to relocate its forces north of the Litani River, establishing a buffer zone patrolled by increased UN peacekeeping forces. The agreement aims to pave the way for the safe return of displaced civilians, but this hinges on the cooperation of Hezbollah, an entity that historically operates independently of the Lebanese government.
The central question surrounding this ceasefire is Hezbollah's willingness to adhere to its terms. The Lebanese government's limited influence over Hezbollah raises serious doubts. While there were consultations between Hezbollah and Lebanese intermediaries involved in the negotiations, the group's official response has been guarded. Statements by Mahmoud Qamati, deputy chair of Hezbollah’s political council, suggest a conditional acceptance, emphasizing the preservation of Lebanese sovereignty and implying that the group's ultimate compliance will depend on a careful review of the agreement. This ambiguity casts a significant shadow over the deal's long-term viability. The inclusion of a clause allowing Israel to retaliate for violations offers little reassurance; such a provision essentially leaves the door open for renewed conflict, depending on how violations are interpreted and responded to.
The current ceasefire bears similarities to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, enacted in 2006 after a previous conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. That resolution also called for a permanent ceasefire, the establishment of a buffer zone, and disarmament, yet failed to fully achieve its objectives. Hezbollah remained entrenched in southern Lebanon, and the weak Lebanese government and UN peacekeeping forces proved incapable of dislodging them. This historical context underscores the significant challenges in enforcing the current agreement. The resolution's failure highlights the inherent difficulties in controlling Hezbollah's actions and the limitations of international monitoring mechanisms when faced with a powerful non-state actor operating with impunity within a fragile state.
Israel's perspective on the ceasefire is equally complex. Despite inflicting significant damage on Hezbollah infrastructure and personnel during the recent conflict, Israel agreed to a ceasefire without achieving a decisive military victory. Prime Minister Netanyahu cited three primary reasons: shifting focus to the Iranian threat, allowing for military resupply, and isolating Hamas in Gaza. These reasons are far from celebratory declarations of victory and expose the reality that Israel faced constraints and may have accepted the deal under external pressure from the US and France. This underscores the uncertainty of the deal's efficacy in ensuring long-term security for Israel.
The US role in this ceasefire is crucial, yet also ambiguous. The administration has offered assurances to Israel, including support for military action against threats originating from Lebanese territory, but has stopped short of deploying ground troops. This leaves the question of enforcement largely unanswered. While the US will monitor the situation through officials stationed in Beirut and collaboration with UN peacekeepers, the ability of such passive measures to truly ensure compliance remains highly questionable. The lack of commitment to active enforcement and the existing limitations of UN peacekeeping forces leave a significant gap in the mechanisms designed to maintain the ceasefire.
The broader geopolitical context, especially Iran's influence, adds another layer of complexity. Iran, Hezbollah's primary sponsor, has welcomed the cessation of Israeli aggression in Lebanon, affirming support for the Lebanese government and resistance. While Iran might refrain from overt actions to undermine the deal, its implicit support for Hezbollah suggests that the group might be less inclined to compromise its positions. Furthermore, this agreement seems designed to allow Israel to focus on its conflict with Hamas in Gaza, without directly addressing the broader regional power dynamics that fuel conflicts in the region. In essence, this ceasefire might lead to an intensification of conflicts in the Gaza strip, with both Israel and Iran, now more free to focus their resources on that region.
The success of the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire remains highly uncertain. The deal's limitations, Hezbollah's unpredictable actions, and the inherent enforcement challenges raise significant concerns about its longevity. The outcome could well define the Biden administration's legacy in the Middle East, highlighting the complexities of achieving lasting peace in a region fraught with deep-seated conflicts and powerful non-state actors operating above any meaningful international pressure.
Source: Opinion: Ceasefire - Israel will be relieved, Hezbollah can't be believed