Opinion | 4 critical concerns about the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire

The announcement of a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah is welcome news for a region torn apart by more than a year of warfare. Hopefully it will offer some respite for both Lebanese and Israeli civilians. The deal came into effect at 4am local time on Wednesday. However, the preceding 24 to 48 hours witnessed a dramatic increase in violence on both sides. This reflects a well-established pattern in warfare, in which fighting increases in intensity just before a ceasefire comes into force. My research has shown that while ceasefires may be the least-worst option we have to reduce violence during wartime, they are certainly not a cure-all. Specifically, I study the terms and power dynamics of ceasefires to better understand some of their less obvious consequences. Here are four questions and concerns I have about the current Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire. 1. What happens after 60 days? The ceasefire agreement reportedly consists of 13 points that aim to stop the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah for 60 days. This pause in fighting could potentially allow more than a million people displaced from southern Lebanon and more than 60,000 people displaced from northern Israel to return to their homes. Returning Israelis to their homes in the north has been one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s explicit war aims. Thousands of Israelis from the north have been housed in hotels across the country for more than a year at significant government expense, so there is also a large economic incentive to make this deal happen. However, given the relatively short time frame and the fragile nature of the ceasefire, as well as the extensive destruction in southern Lebanon, it remains to be seen whether civilians on both sides will take the opportunity to return home. While US President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron suggest the ceasefire will provide the basis for a “lasting calm”, the agreement lacks clarity on what will occur after the 60 days. 2. The conflict could expand to Syria Several terms of the ceasefire focus on limiting Hezbollah’s ability to rearm, which includes dismantling unauthorised infrastructure and weapons production facilities in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah receives weapons from Iran through Syria, and the terms of the ceasefire raise the possibility that Israel may carry out more air strikes inside Syria to ensure weapons from Iran do not reach Hezbollah. While such actions are not explicitly authorised under the ceasefire agreement or international law, the deal provides Israel some justification for taking these measures. It could argue it is enforcing the agreement by stopping Hezbollah from rearming. Following the ceasefire announcement, Israel targeted sites along Lebanon’s northern border with Syria for the first time, presumably as a way to curb Iran’s influence. 3. Lack of detail on troop withdrawal In many ways, the ceasefire is based on UN Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel. It’s ironic that the terms of the ceasefire recognise the importance of this resolution when Israel has largely ignored several other UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. And arguably, resolution 1701 was never fully implemented by either Israel or Hezbollah. One key term of the ceasefire is that Israel will gradually withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon over 60 days, during which only the Lebanese Army and state security forces will be “authorised to carry weapons or deploy troops” in the area south of the Litani River. Al Jazeera has reported Israel insists that Hezbollah must dismantle its presence there before any Israeli troop withdrawal. Since the ceasefire provides no specific detail on logistics, it remains unclear how and when the Israel Defence Forces will withdraw their troops. Additionally, the Lebanese Army and security forces are generally viewed as being incredibly underfunded, as well as unable and/or unwilling to challenge Hezbollah’s dominance in Lebanon. Another term of the ceasefire says the US will support indirect negotiations between Israel and Lebanon to achieve an internationally recognised border. The explicit mention of negotiations on the border suggests it may change as a result of the ceasefire, potentially allowing Israel to retain and secure new territory. 4. What about Gaza? Netanyahu has said the ceasefire will enable Israel to focus its efforts on Hamas fighters in Gaza and his top security concern, Iran. Other officials have called the ceasefire “a game-changer”, indicating it separates the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. Hezbollah, which previously demanded the war in Gaza end before agreeing to a ceasefire, seems to have dropped that condition. Some have suggested a ceasefire with Hezbollah may put additional pressure on Hamas to negotiate a deal with Israel regarding the release of the remaining Israeli hostages in its custody. However, this perspective overlooks the fact Hamas has previously been willing to make a ceasefire deal, while the Israeli government has stymied negotiations by adding new terms at the last minute. Moreover, Qatar recently withdrew as a mediator due to frustration over the “unwillingness to engage” and “lack of good faith” exhibited by both sides. The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is significant, but it should not distract from the ongoing conflict in Gaza or the horrific humanitarian situation there. It remains to be seen how the war in Gaza will unfold. Will Israel proceed with a more formal occupation of parts of the enclave, as some have suggested? Or will the ceasefire with Hezbollah leave Hamas feeling even more isolated, potentially leading to a situation in which it has even less to lose – both for itself and for the Palestinians? Marika Sosnowski is an Australian lawyer, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne Law School and a Research Associate with the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA) in Hamburg. This article was first published by The Conversation.

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}The 60-day truce may not lead to lasting peace, with potential for conflict escalation in Syria and unclear troop withdrawal plans

1. What happens after 60 days?

The 60-day truce may not lead to lasting peace, with potential for conflict escalation in Syria and unclear troop withdrawal plans