Three generations of Lebanese know the pain and suffering resulting from Israeli invasions of their country. Equally, three generations of Israelis know the cost – if not the futility – of invading Lebanon. The invasion of 1982 was intended to beat back Palestinian militant groups, install a pro-Israel government and provide “40 years of peace”. Instead, it gave birth to Hezbollah. In the 42 years since, Israeli soldiers have entered Lebanon twice more – in 2006, and again this year – to try to eliminate the threat of Hezbollah.
This year’s invasion is already three weeks longer than the last. It has been far more injurious to Lebanese civilians, too; more than 3,000 have been killed since October, while nearly a quarter of the country has been displaced. And while Israeli forces have killed several senior Hezbollah commanders as well as the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah remains a political force in Lebanon. Tuesday’s news of a ceasefire, therefore, is not the product of an overwhelming Israeli victory. It has emerged, more likely, out of a growing realisation in both sides that a winning scenario does not exist.
Hezbollah, for its part, has already drawn the ire of many Lebanese for dragging them to war and holding the political system in the country hostage. Despite the heavy price Lebanon has paid, Hezbollah had remained stubborn in rejecting solutions for the country’s many troubles. Also, its attacks have made little material difference in Gaza, where Israeli forces have killed more than 44,200 Palestinians and brought the enclave to complete ruin.
And yet, Israel cannot afford to wage a war on two fronts forever. Hezbollah may be both injured and embarrassed, but it is not defeated. Meanwhile, discontent is growing among many Israelis – their government appears no closer to freeing the remaining hostages in Gaza and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems uninterested in a ceasefire deal there, and has used a televised speech to say the ceasefire in Lebanon will allow it to refocus on its operations in Gaza.
The proposed 60-day ceasefire in Lebanon, brokered by the US, would see Israeli forces withdraw from southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah commits to withdrawing its forces north of the Litani River. The Lebanese Army will be posted in southern Lebanon alongside the existing UN peacekeeping force, restoring state control to an area that was almost exclusively the domain of Hezbollah. That would be a good thing for Lebanese sovereignty, though it is undercut somewhat by Israel’s insistence that it be allowed to bomb Lebanon unilaterally if it perceives a threat in the future.
The deal is, in broad strokes, a restoration of the terms set out by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which encapsulated the ceasefire terms that ended the 2006 war. The events of the past year – in Israel, Gaza and Lebanon – have left the world in fear that things will never again be the same in the Middle East. In light of this, a return to a status quo of sorts, at least in southern Lebanon, would give some hope that the wider spiral of violence can yet subside.
There are plenty of spoilers that could blow up this deal. Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right Israeli minister, has been vocal in his opposition, arguing that Israel should not withdraw until Hezbollah is destroyed. A statement from Israeli army spokesman Col Avichay Adraee telling Lebanese civilians that they are prohibited from entering villages under Israeli eviction orders or areas near Israeli troops strikes another discordant tone. One can only imagine the reaction if Hezbollah were to issue a similar edict to displaced Israeli northerners wanting to return to their homes.
On the Lebanese side, there is virtually “zero trust” that Israel will stick to the terms, one official told The National. In the absence of any trust, many things can go wrong. This is why the diplomatic efforts seen thus far must be maintained. A sustained commitment from Washington to an American-led committee that will oversee the development of a permanent ceasefire – especially during the current US political transition – is vital. Similarly important are the moves taking place in Lebanon to elect a president and restore some kind of political stability.
If this ceasefire can be made to hold while diplomats work to untangle the knots in Israel’s other conflicts, then eventually there will be reason to trust again. There is nothing to be gained by Israel, Lebanon or Hezbollah by allowing this moment of cautious optimism to be squandered.
