Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire: Path to Peace or Festering Wound?

At 4:00am local time on November 27, a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon officially came into effect. This significant step was made possible through the mediation efforts of the United States and France, which developed and proposed a conflict resolution plan.

The agreement outlines comprehensive measures for stabilizing southern Lebanon, where intense clashes had been ongoing between the IDF and the armed group Hezbollah.

According to the agreement, the Lebanese Army is mandated to deploy across the southern territories within the next 60 days, displacing Hezbollah’s forces and infrastructure. The group is required to withdraw north of the Litani River, which is located approximately 20–30 kilometers from the Israeli border at various points.

This arrangement aims to establish a security zone free from Hezbollah’s armed presence, a measure designed to ease tensions along the border. In turn, Israel has committed to fully withdrawing its military forces from Lebanese territory. This process will be conducted in phases under international supervision.

The agreement also provides for the creation of a special international committee to oversee the implementation of these provisions. The US, which has taken a leading role in ensuring stability and adherence to the ceasefire terms, chairs this body.

Washington has also pledged to support Israel in the event of imminent threats from Lebanese territory, offering both direct military assistance and proactive measures to prevent the reestablishment of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in southern Lebanon.

What lies ahead for Lebanon?

The ceasefire agreement, while offering temporary relief and a chance to stabilize the region, may trigger complex internal political dynamics within Lebanon.

The primary challenge lies in the weakening of Hezbollah – one of the country’s most influential political and military force – which is likely to ignite a power struggle among various political factions and groups.

Given that the country is already enduring one of the worst crises in its modern history, such internal tensions could escalate into a serious conflict.

Lebanon’s economic situation remains catastrophic. The financial system is effectively in ruins, the national currency continues to depreciate, and access to basic goods and services is severely limited.

Amid this crisis, the central institutions of state governance have weakened significantly, as evidenced by the country’s prolonged inability to elect a new president. The absence of clear leadership and stable governance has created fertile ground for heightened political divisions and conflicts among different groups.

For years, Hezbollah has played a key role not only as an armed force but also as a central player in Lebanon’s political landscape. It has provided social and economic programs, often replacing state services in certain regions.

However, the weakening of Hezbollah as a result of the ceasefire agreement with Israel – including its withdrawal from southern areas and limitations on its presence – creates opportunities for other political forces to fill this vacuum, potentially leading to a fierce competition for influence and resources.

The diminished role of Hezbollah could pave the way for other Lebanese political parties and movements, such as Future Movement, Kataeb, the Lebanese Forces, Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), Amal, Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), and Marada, to vie for control.

In the absence of a strong leader in southern Lebanon and amidst political instability, these factions may seek to assert themselves, exacerbating internal rivalries.

Lebanon’s political elite has historically been divided along sectarian lines, with power struggles between these groups serving as a major source of conflict. The weakening of Hezbollah will necessitate a reevaluation of the existing political balance, posing additional challenges for coalition-building and consensus within the parliament and government.

With the economic crisis continuing to burden the population, rising political tensions could lead to open confrontations.

Given Lebanon’s historically fraught relations between sectarian communities, the risk of renewed civil conflict remains high. Hezbollah’s weakening could be perceived by its supporters as a threat to the security of the Shia community, potentially leading to radicalization and increased tensions with other groups.

Meanwhile, Sunni and Christian factions might seize the opportunity to expand their influence, further fueling conflicts.

International actors, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France, the US, and others, are also likely to intensify their involvement, further complicating the internal situation. Lebanon risks entering a new phase of civil instability, where the competing interests of domestic and external players could result in open confrontation.

Thus, while the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon may bring temporary relief to the population and reduce Hezbollah’s military presence in the south, it also carries the risk of exacerbating internal political tensions.

Amid an ongoing economic crisis, weak state institutions, and deep sectarian divisions, Lebanon faces the serious threat of a worsening political crisis or even the outbreak of civil conflict.

The prospects for stabilizing the country will largely depend on the willingness of Lebanese politicians to find compromises and on international support for strengthening state institutions and providing economic assistance.

What does this mean for Israel?

The ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon has triggered significant domestic political repercussions in Israel, particularly for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While the deal has reduced tensions along the northern border and brought temporary stability, it cannot be viewed as an unequivocal victory for Netanyahu.

On one hand, the truce has averted further loss of life and economic damage; on the other, it has sparked intense debates within the political establishment, casting doubt on the Israeli leadership’s strategy.

The upcoming return of Donald Trump to the White House played a pivotal role in facilitating the ceasefire. Trump’s election victory significantly shaped the international context in which these events unfolded.

Mike Waltz, Trump’s future National Security Advisor, stated that the ceasefire was a direct result of changes in US foreign policy following the Republican’s victory.

This underscores the influence of American diplomacy on Israeli decision-making and highlights the close connection between political shifts in Washington and developments in the Middle East. It appears that Israel’s leadership made concessions under US pressure, as Washington seeks a more restrained approach to regional conflicts.

The ceasefire agreement has divided Israeli politicians and become a subject of heated debate. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir described the truce with Lebanon as a “historic mistake” that undermines the war’s primary objective: ensuring Israel’s long-term security.

He argues that the ceasefire reflects weakness, which could embolden Hezbollah and other hostile groups to continue exerting pressure on Israel.

Public opinion in Israel is similarly split. On the one hand, many citizens feel relief at the cessation of hostilities and the opportunity to return to normal life. On the other, a significant portion of the population is concerned that the government’s lack of decisive action could lead to recurring threats in the future.

Fears of potential provocations by Hezbollah and distrust in the current leadership’s ability to effectively respond to such threats have created a tense atmosphere within society.

A poll conducted on Tuesday revealed that over 80% of Netanyahu’s supporters oppose the agreement. Residents of northern Israel, many of whom were evacuated from their homes, have also expressed dissatisfaction. Nationally, opinions are more fragmented: one poll showed that 37% of Israelis support the ceasefire, 32% are against it, and 31% remain undecided.

The ceasefire with Lebanon could significantly weaken Netanyahu’s position on the domestic political stage. While the prime minister asserts that the truce was necessary to protect civilians and ensure stability, this argument has failed to convince his critics. Pressure from far-right parties may erode confidence in his leadership among conservative voters, who demand a tougher stance on security issues.

The opposition is likely to exploit the situation to increase pressure on the government, calling for new elections and arguing that Netanyahu is incapable of safeguarding national interests.

In the context of the ongoing political instability that has plagued Israel in recent years, this agreement could impact Netanyahu’s ability to retain the office of prime minister. He faces a difficult dilemma: balancing international pressure with domestic demands for more decisive action, making his political future highly uncertain.

Expert opinions on the ceasefire are also divided. Some analysts argue that the agreement was a necessary step to prevent the conflict from escalating into a full-scale crisis, which could have resulted in heavy losses for both sides.

Others, however, caution that a temporary truce without a clear roadmap for further action merely postpones the problem. Hezbollah could use the lull to strengthen its forces, leaving the current situation fragile and unpredictable.

Thus, while the ceasefire with Lebanon temporarily reduces tensions along Israel’s northern border, it also exacerbates internal political divisions and casts doubt on Netanyahu’s political survival.

With pressure mounting from both far-right politicians and the opposition, his ability to maintain political stability and voter confidence will face serious tests in the coming months. Internal discord and external pressure from the United States further complicate the unpredictable landscape of Israeli politics.

The introduction of a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon is a significant step toward de-escalating the conflict. However, the success of the agreement depends on the willingness of both sides to honor its terms and the effectiveness of international oversight.

In the coming weeks, it will become clear whether this plan can serve as a foundation for lasting peace or remains a temporary measure in the ongoing cycle of regional crises.

The ceasefire agreement could also act as a destabilizing factor for both nations, as it intensifies internal divisions in both nations.

In Israel, a significant portion of the population, including government supporters, expresses dissatisfaction with the concessions, perceiving them as a sign of weakness, which could fuel heightened tensions and political instability.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, the weakening of Hezbollah may exacerbate disputes among various political and armed factions, particularly if they begin to vie for control of the resulting power vacuum. Instead of stabilizing the conflict, the ceasefire risks triggering internal turmoil, further deepening the socio-political challenges in both countries.