Lebanon Ceasefire Is Fraying – The Soufan Center

AP Photo/Matias Delacroix

Repeated Israeli airstrikes on Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon since the start of a ceasefire on November 27 have led many regional and global experts to express concerns that the truce might collapse. On December 3, Lebanon’s parliament speaker, Nabih Berri, who negotiated on behalf of Hezbollah to forge the ceasefire, accused Israel of violating the agreement more than 50 times by launching airstrikes, demolishing homes near the border, and violating Lebanon’s airspace. French and other global officials assert that Israel’s violations have been even more numerous. Berri’s comments came one day after Hezbollah fired munitions into a disputed border area known as Shebaa Farms in response to a series of Israeli ceasefire violations over previous days. It was the first time since the ceasefire that Hezbollah fired into Israel-controlled territory. Hezbollah figures explained that the strike was a message to Israel that demonstrated it was willing and able to respond to continued Israeli attacks. An Israeli response later that day killed at least 11 people, said Lebanon’s health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Despite the truce violations, officials involved in negotiating and implementing the ceasefire sought to calm fears that the fragile truce was giving way to a return of major fighting that had already devastated southern Lebanon and parts of Beirut. Officials noted the ceasefire agreement provides for an initial 60-day implementation period during which, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1701 that ended the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah conflict, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and a UN-authorized peacekeeping mission, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) would reinforce their deployments in southern Lebanon. During this period, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is to withdraw from southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah is to move off the border to the Litani River, 18 miles north of the de-facto Israel-Lebanon border.

Among the official statements on the process, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti told journalists, “this cessation of hostilities is still very fragile, so commitment from everyone is paramount…The full deployment of the Lebanese army, together with the reported U.S.-French [ceasefire monitoring] mechanism and a full implementation of Resolution 1701, would make it more likely that the ceasefire would succeed.” White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said last week, “Largely speaking, the ceasefire is holding…We’ve gone from dozens of strikes down to one a day maybe two a day…We’re going to keep trying and see what we can do to get it down to zero.” He added: “The ceasefire is holding…Fundamentally, both parties — that is to say, Israel and Hezbollah, through the Lebanese government — wanted and continue to want the ceasefire.”

The ultimate success of the ceasefire will depend on the effectiveness of mechanisms put in place to try to correct the deficiencies in Resolution 1701. The Resolution’s lack of enforcement mechanisms, in 2006, enabled Hezbollah forces to re-populate the border areas and Israel to conduct occasional raids into and regular overflights of Lebanon. The new accord sets up a five-entity monitoring mechanism, chaired by the United States, that will receive reports of and determine violations and presumably recommend remedies. In addition to the U.S. chairmanship, the monitoring committee includes France, the former mandate power in Lebanon with longstanding ties to key Lebanese leaders, as well as representatives of the LAF, the IDF, and UNIFIL. U.S. Major General Jasper Jeffers, Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT), arrived in Beirut on November 27 to take up his post as a co-chair of the mechanism, alongside Senior Advisor to the President, Amos Hochstein, who will serve as the civilian co-chair until a permanent civilian official is named.

Yet, the monitoring and implementation mechanism will continue to face challenges from competing interpretations of its provisions and from the historically close U.S.-Israel relationship. Israeli leaders assert that its post-ceasefire strikes on Hezbollah are justified by a widely reported U.S. letter to Israel guaranteeing that the U.S. would politically support Israel’s right to strike at Hezbollah should it try to rebuild its forces in the south. Officials have not shared the private letter. Lebanese leaders, backed by France and other stakeholders, insist that only the accord’s monitoring committee is empowered to determine violations. More broadly, Israeli leaders have argued that even minor violations could embolden Hezbollah and must be addressed by Israel immediately.

Although retaining confidence in the enforcement architecture of the ceasefire, some regional and global experts and officials assess that, even if the truce is implemented as designed, renewed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is likely. Israeli officials claim they achieved the major goal of weakening Hezbollah. Still, the ceasefire has not eased Israeli fears that the group could at some point conduct an incursion similar to Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terrorist attack. Retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Assaf Orion, a military liaison to UNIFIL and the Lebanese army from 2006 to 2015 and now a Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute, said: “So, it is difficult to trust an agreement that places enforcement in the hands of the Lebanese security forces, which already failed the first time around [during the 2006 enforcement of Resolution 1701].”

Concerns about the perceived continuing threat from Hezbollah have caused most of the 60,000 Israelis who fled northern Israel to refuse to return to their homes. Among the difficulties in instilling confidence in the accord are legal restrictions that prevented the Lebanese army from searching private homes, according to UNIFIL spokesperson Tenenti. In addition, LAF officers have said publicly that their role is not to confront Hezbollah militarily if it attempts to rebuild its military infrastructure south of the Litani River. The LAF’s role is generally defined as preserving security in the south. In the past, when the LAF sought to confront Hezbollah’s militia, the army’s units were either defeated or fractured along sectarian lines.

Many experts attribute the fraying of the ceasefire to more profound strategic calculations on the part of the major actors. A wide range of experts believe that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and hardline members of his governing coalition viewed the ceasefire as cutting short a perceived successful offensive against Hezbollah. Some argue that the Israeli leadership hoped to pursue the conflict until Lebanon’s other major communities, including Maronite Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druze, would insist that Hezbollah be disarmed completely and stripped it of its decision-making influence. According to this view, Israel’s leaders might see the benefit of a collapse of the ceasefire, which would presumably justify their pursuit of these broader goals. Additionally, the continued refusal of Israelis to return to their homes in the north will increase political pressure on Israeli leaders to consider the ceasefire a failure and resume offensive operations.

For Hezbollah’s part, the ceasefire mandates certain constraints that could call into question its legitimacy as a “resistance” movement fighting Israeli occupation and aggression. Hezbollah’s withdrawal to north of the Litani River removes the group from occupying frontline positions with Israeli forces. Hezbollah leaders likely calculate that, should the group no longer be able to characterize itself as a resistance, anti-Hezbollah factions and communities in Lebanon might more forcefully insist the group disarm outright. Hezbollah’s need to continue to confront Israel will likely motivate the group to try to rebuild its military infrastructure and replace the weaponry fired at Israel or destroyed by Israeli strikes. Many experts assess that Israeli leaders will act to prevent Hezbollah from reconstituting its arsenal to pre-war levels. Toward that objective, Israel has been striking border positions in Syria that are used by Iran to transship weaponry to Hezbollah. The group’s ability to receive Iranian supplies will be severely constrained now that the Assad regime in Syria has fallen to the rebel offensive. For now, however, Hezbollah appears to retain sufficient armed force and political support among its Shia Muslim base in Lebanon to continue to exert influence over Lebanon’s government decisions. The group’s intact units and rocket, missile, and drone arsenal are also capable of responding to renewed Israeli military operations.

More broadly, global diplomats have expressed concerns that the renewal of a major Israel-Hezbollah conflict would not be limited to Hezbollah strongholds. Last week, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz placed responsibility for enforcement of the ceasefire on the Lebanese government, saying it needed to authorize its army to act against Hezbollah or risk facing a broader war than before. He stated: “If up until now we have distinguished between Lebanon and Hezbollah — this will no longer be the case” in the future.