Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire: A Path to Peace or a Temporary Pause?
Israel and Hezbollah reached a ceasefire, bringing an end to their latest wave of conflict. The truce went into effect at 4 a.m. Wednesday in Lebanon, drawing praise from peace advocates and world leaders. However, Israeli airstrikes on Beirut, including several in the city center, occurred just before the ceasefire began, further contributing to the chaos on the ground. The Israeli military issued warnings to residents in southern Lebanon to avoid IDF positions and evacuated villages. Despite the warnings and ongoing uncertainty, residents filled the roads from Beirut to southern Lebanon, determined to return to their homes. Hezbollah and the Amal political movement provided guidance for those returning to villages south of the Litani River. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government remained silent, revealing its inability to assert authority or manage the unfolding situation.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed the deal after his full cabinet approved it, despite opposition from his far-right allies. In televised remarks following the Israeli security cabinet’s vote on the 60-day ceasefire proposal, Netanyahu confirmed his readiness to implement the deal but stressed that Israel would retain full military freedom to act if Hezbollah violated the ceasefire.
The 60-day agreement, spanning two months, is grounded in UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which brought an end to the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah but remains only partially enforced. Under its terms, Israel must withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah is required to move its heavy weaponry north of the Litani River, about 25 kilometers from the border. During the transition, the Western-backed Lebanese army is expected to take up positions in the south.
Although Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, its forces are not included in the official military. A copy of the ceasefire deal, reviewed by Reuters, specifies that only official military and security forces in Lebanon may carry weapons. While Hezbollah is unlikely to fully disarm, it may reduce its visible armed presence. Israel has consistently criticized Hezbollah for stationing weapons near its border.
Both parties repeatedly cycle through conflicts and ceasefires, demonstrating that neither truly seeks lasting peace. This time, they paused strategically and agreed to a truce because both required time. Their deep-rooted hatred persists without any signs of diminishing. Hezbollah considers expelling Jews a religious obligation, while Israel, fueled by the memory of the October 7th attack, remains driven by a desire for vengeance. Hezbollah uses the truce to rebuild its infrastructure, which Israel’s attacks and the loss of its top leader have severely damaged. At the same time, Israel works to strengthen ties with the incoming Trump administration and avoid escalating the conflict further, as doing so could harm its business relationships with Gulf states. And the truce gives Israel an opportunity to shift its focus toward Gaza.
Will this ceasefire pave the way for one in Gaza? That remains unclear. Israel has not shifted its focus toward securing a truce in Gaza. The current agreement does not address the ongoing conflict there, where U.S.-led efforts to mediate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas have so far failed. Negotiators deliberately excluded Gaza from the discussions. When asked about the possibility of a Gaza ceasefire, Biden expressed cautious optimism, stating that he believed it was possible and hoped for it. However, Israel may delay addressing the Gaza conflict until Trump takes office, when he could bring a plan for Gaza that heavily favors Israel’s interests.
