Can Lebanon’s Ceasefire Lead to a Gaza Let up?

The cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon is raising questions about whether a similar truce could bring an end to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Statements from around the world have given rise to cautious hope, such as the US saying it aims to use the Lebanon truce “as a catalyst for a potential Gaza cease-fire,” but prospects of something actually materializing remain uncertain.

Palestinian academic Sami Al-Arian believes Israel does not want a cease-fire in Gaza, at least “for the time being.”

“Knowing that (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu will be facing prison once the war ends in Gaza, it doesn’t seem like he’s interested in either getting the hostages out or ending this genocidal war,” he told Anadolu.

Israel, he said, has been trying to “annihilate the (Palestinian) resistance” but failed to do so, or “free their captives with military means.”

“They have been trying for 14 months and they have failed miserably,” he said, adding that going for a cease-fire in such conditions would not fit in with Israel’s goals.

Israeli expert Ori Goldberg also finds chances of a truce in Gaza difficult, pointing to Netanyahu’s own statement rejecting that specific possibility.

He said the Israeli premier, now a man wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, is unlikely to agree to cease-fire terms that risk his political standing.

“Various countries have already stated a renewed commitment to a hostage deal, but a cease-fire in Gaza will have to include a detailed schedule for Israeli withdrawal,” Goldberg said.

“I have trouble seeing Netanyahu agreeing to that in Gaza … If he agrees to it in Gaza, he will seem weaker.”

Another factor, he added, is how much “the Israeli public supports the presence of the Israeli military in Gaza, much more than it does in Lebanon.”

Why did Israel agree to Lebanon cease-fire?

Experts say Israel’s main reason for agreeing to the Lebanon truce was because it failed to achieve its military goals against Hezbollah.

“They wanted to push Hezbollah to the north of the Litani River but that failed. They wanted to disarm Hezbollah, and that failed,” said Al-Arian, adding that Israel opted for a cessation of hostilities because its forces were suffering.

“They wanted to impinge on Lebanese sovereignty and be able to fly over the airspace of Lebanon and control the border. That failed.”

Other goals of returning illegal Israeli settlers to Lebanese lands or creating a buffer zone also failed, he added.

Al-Arian emphasized that the current agreement is “not a cease-fire” but a truce for 60 days, reiterating that Israel’s only reason for agreeing was that “they were not able to bring Hezbollah to its knees and surrender.”

Ali Rizk, a Lebanese security analyst, presented a slightly different view, saying that both Israel and Hezbollah needed the truce.

“Hezbollah needed a cease-fire because it had suffered some heavy blows,” he told Anadolu.

Hezbollah’s supporters, particularly among the Shia community, were targeted by Israel, with many of them being displaced, and there was “immense human suffering with the onset of the winter season,” he added.

For Israel, Rizk believes they “initially had the momentum in their favor, especially after the assassination of Hezbollah’s former leader Syed Hassan Nasrallah, but gradually that momentum appeared to fade away.”

“They encountered some heavy resistance in the south. A lot of their soldiers lost their lives in the south. Hezbollah missile and rocket attacks continued,” he said.

In his own statement, while Netanyahu “didn’t say it, but he was implying that the Israeli military was suffering from some kind of a fatigue,” Rizk pointed out.

The US was another factor, he said, as it never wanted – since October 2023 – the “situation to erupt, to explode in Lebanon.”

“They (US) welcomed any steps and they took the opportunity when they found that these circumstances were appropriate and they sent Amos Hochstein,” said Rizk, referring to Biden’s special envoy.

“There were several factors – Hezbollah’s interests, Israeli interests and US interests – and I think they all converge in the same direction.”

Israeli analyst Goldberg also believes Netanyahu agreed to a truce because his forces were not accomplishing their goals in Lebanon.

“He wants to keep the Israeli military in Gaza. There’s no victory there, so he wanted something that would be a feather in his cap … He agreed to it in Lebanon because these are two sovereign states,” he said.

Will Lebanon cease-fire hold and what comes next?

On the durability of the Lebanon truce, Rizk struck an optimistic tone.

“If you look at what happened in 2006, Resolution 1701, that ended that conflict and it spoke about a cessation of hostilities,” he said, adding that the situation remained calm from 2006 till 2023.

“It’s quite possible that … we could have a long-term calm again … because it’s clear that neither the Israelis nor the Americans have an interest in the situation exploding.”

With Trump coming to power soon, having made clear his aversion to any war or military adventures, it would be fair to say “there is a good chance that this agreement is going to hold,” he added.

Goldberg, however, was more cautious in his outlook.

“I think the cease-fire will hold, even though there are provisions … that suggest that Israel can open fire and use violence whenever it likes. We will see how this happens,” he said.

“I think Netanyahu has an interest in the cease-fire holding because that gives him carte blanche in Gaza.”

Rizk, meanwhile, also believes that a formula could be reached to end the Gaza genocide and go ahead with a hostage deal.

“In July, according to reports, (US President-elect Donald) Trump told Netanyahu that he wants the situation done, and he wants the war to come to an end,” he said.

“If you look at Trump’s appointments and his mandate, it seems that he doesn’t want anything to do with a new conflict in the Middle East. He’s even given indications that he wants to deal with Iran, so that leads me to conclude that his foreign policy priorities are going to be elsewhere, which requires calm in this part of the world.”

Continue reading
Israel Breaks Ceasefire

The Israeli occupation breaches the ceasefire agreement and carries out several attacks on southern villages in Lebanon:

Three people were injured in a strike by Israeli drones on a car in the town of Markaba.

Israeli artillery targets the town of Al-Taybeh.

Three shells were fired at the town of Rmeish (Kharbet Kora), damaging a house and a supermarket, while Israeli aircraft flew at low altitude over Mount Lebanon and the south.

Gunfire was directed at civilians attempting to return to their homes in the city of Bint Jbeil.

An Israeli tank targeted the outskirts of Kfarshouba with two shells.

Continue reading
Ceasefire Conundrum

By Dr Khairi Janbek

It is really pointless to keep thinking in terms of the endless circle of whether this ceasefire is a Pyrrhic victory for Israel or for Hezbullah, because the real winners are all those people who can go back to their homes hopefully very soon. In fact the whole issue is not about victory, but about the losing side, and in actual fact it is the state of Lebanon and the Lebanese people.

One the one hand, with this ceasefire agreement, Lebanon has fallen under the mandate of the US, France and Britain on the one hand, as guarantors of it, and on the other, under the mandate of Iran as the other guarantor of the accord. So where is the Lebanese sovereignty under the circumstances?

Indeed, Israel treats the Lebanese state sovereignty in terms similar to how apartheid South Africa used to treat its Bantustans, giving itself the right to intervene in Lebanon whenever it sees fit.

Moreover, what is it exactly the western overseers of this ceasefire are guaranteeing to Israel, and what is it exactly Iran has agreed to as the other overseer? One is not raising doubts here, rather wondering how this ceasefire can be implemented. For all intents and purposes, a country, unfortunately with dubious sovereignty, is supposed to secure the areas from which Hezbullah has withdrawn; from the Litani River southward, and which the Israelis will withdraw from, with the UNIFL as the other go-between.

Now, it is legitimate to ask if the Lebanese army has armaments sufficient to carry out the job and is it logistically prepared for such tasks, because we haven’t heard anything of whether there will a massive rearmament programme to support the Lebanese, especially since they don’t intend, as it seems, to deploy their forces in the area.

On the other hand, what will the other mandate power, Iran, like to do? Evidently the talk of Hezbullah surrendering its weapons might drag on, dependent on the “chicken game” the mullahs in Tehran will play with coming US president Donald Trump. In a sense, who will blink first. How will president Trump deal with Iran ? Will he see Tehran as the arch enemy, or will he take conciliatory steps towards it.

If Tehran is pushed in a corner, it might not relinquish all of its gains in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, not to mention Lebanon, without a fight. Consequently, and depending on how the next Washington administration handles the situation, will determine whether the ceasefire holds or not. This will be the least of the region’s worries actually especially since Mr Trump is partial to proxy wars.

Dr Khairi Janbek is a Jordanian historian based in Paris and the above opinion is written exclusively for crossfirearabia.com. 

Continue reading