Advertisement A ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah this is excellent news for a region torn apart by over a yr of war. Once implemented, the ceasefire will hopefully provide some respite for each Lebanese and Israeli civilians.
Agreement got here into force on Wednesday at 4:00 a.m. local time. However, the previous 24-48 hours had been dramatic increase in violence on either side. This is a part of a long-established pattern of warfare by which the intensity of fighting increases just before a ceasefire comes into force.
My tests showed that while a ceasefire may be the least worst option we are able to pursue to reduce violence in war, it is actually not a panacea.
In particular, I examine the timing and dynamics of ceasefires to higher understand a few of their less obvious consequences. Here are 4 questions and concerns I actually have about the current ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
Wael Hamzeh/EPA
1. What will occur after 60 days?
The ceasefire agreement reportedly does 13 points whose aim is to stop hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah for 60 days.
This would theoretically allow over a million people displaced from southern Lebanon and over 60,000 people displaced from northern Israel to return to their homes.
The return of Israelis to their homes in the north is considered one of the goals of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clear war purposes. Thousands of northern Israelis have been housed in hotels across the country for over a yr at great cost to the government, so there is also a large economic incentive to enter into this deal.
However, given the relatively short time-frame and the fragile nature of the ceasefire, it stays to be seen whether civilians on either side will take the opportunity to return home.
In addition, there is destruction in southern Lebanon extensivemaking it difficult for people to return inside the relatively short duration of the truce.
Although US President Joe Biden and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron have said a ceasefire would ensure base for “lasting peace,” the terms of the ceasefire provide no details on what is going to occur after the 60-day period.
2. The conflict may spread to Syria
Many of the terms refer to limiting Hezbollah’s ability to rearm during the ceasefire. This includes dismantling all illegal infrastructure and weapons production facilities in southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s principal patron, Iran, supplies weapons to Hezbollah through Syria. The terms of the ceasefire raise the possibility that Israel will conduct more airstrikes in Syria to ensure weapons from Iran do not reach Hezbollah.
While not expressly permitted under the ceasefire or international law, the agreement provides Israel with some justification for taking such motion. It may argue that it is enforcing the terms of the ceasefire by stopping Hezbollah from rearming with arms supplies from Iran.
After Israel announced the ceasefire targeted for the first time, places on Lebanon’s northern border with Syria, probably to limit Iran’s influence.
3. No details regarding troop withdrawal
In many respects, the ceasefire is based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701that ended the war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006.
It is ironic that the terms of the ceasefire recognize the importance of this resolution when Israel largely did not ignored several other UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
And probably Resolution 1701 was never complete implemented by Israel or Hezbollah.
Another condition of the agreement is that Israel will progressively withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon over 60 days.
At that point, the Lebanese army and state security forces will turn out to be “the only entities authorized to bear arms or deploy troops” in the area south of the Litani River. Al Jazeera has reported that Israel insists that Hezbollah disband and leave southern Lebanon before any Israeli soldiers withdraw.
Given that the ceasefire does not include any details regarding logistics, it stays to be seen whether and the way the IDF will withdraw its troops. In addition, it is generally the Lebanese army and security forces seen as vastly underfunded and unable and/or unwilling to challenge Hezbollah’s primacy in Lebanon.
Next, one other one deadline The ceasefire agreement states that the United States will support indirect negotiations between Israel and Lebanon to achieve an internationally recognized delimitation of their border.
The explicit mention of negotiations at the border suggests that it might change as a results of the ceasefire. This may mean that, as a result, Israel will try to retain and maintain the latest territory.
4. What about Gaza?
Netanyahu does he said the ceasefire will enable Israel to focus its efforts on Hamas fighters in Gaza and its principal security threat, Iran.
Other officials called the ceasefire a “gamechanger” that might show Hamas that the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon have been resolved.
Hezbollah has had this before he insisted did not agree to a ceasefire until the war in Gaza ended. The latest agreement assumes that this condition has been dropped.
Some people do suggested a ceasefire with Hezbollah could put additional pressure on Hamas to agree to an agreement with Israel to release the remaining Israeli hostages it holds.
However, this ignores the undeniable fact that Hamas was like this willing to reach a ceasefire agreement in the past, while the Israeli government did so difficult negotiations by adding latest terms at the last minute.
Abdel Kareem Hana/AP
Moreover, Qatar has turn out to be so frustrated by the “reluctance to engage” and “lack of good faith” on either side that it recently he withdrew as a mediator between the parties.
The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah should not distract attention from the fighting in Gaza or the horrific and tragic humanitarian situation there.
Time will tell how the war in Gaza will unfold. Will Israel undertake a more formal occupation of parts of the enclave, as some have suggested? Or will a ceasefire with Hezbollah serve to isolate Hamas to the point where it feels it has even less to lose than it – and the Palestinians – have already got?