A ceasefire deal came into effect between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hezbollah in the early hours of November 26, bringing two months of hostilities in Lebanon to an end. The country’s main roads have since then been jammed as people rush back to what remains of their homes in the south.
The outgoing US president, Joe Biden, said the agreement is “designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities.” He added: “What is left of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations will not be allowed — will — I emphasize — will not be allowed to threaten the security of Israel again.” But what are the prospects of the deal actually holding?
Hezbollah continues to claim that it defeated the Israeli military in Lebanon and says its forces will ensure that the IDF adheres to the ceasefire. Israel, in a similar fashion, has claimed the right to respond to violations and has warned Lebanese citizens that they should stay away from frontline areas for now.
Hours before the deal came into effect, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “If Hezbollah violates the agreement and tries to arm itself, we will attack. If it tries to rebuild terrorist infrastructure near the border, we will attack. If it launches a rocket, if it digs a tunnel, if it brings in a truck carrying rockets, we will attack.” Indeed, Israeli tanks opened fire on “suspects” arriving with vehicles in a number of areas in southern Lebanon on Thursday.
But, while fragile, the truce may well last. John Strawson, an expert in Middle Eastern politics at the University of East London, says Israel’s military has inflicted immense damage on the group’s military organization. The fact that Hezbollah has entered a ceasefire with Israel at all, he argues, highlights its diminished capacity to take the fight to Israel.
Vanessa Newby of Leiden University in the Netherlands and Chiara Ruffa of Sciences Po in France have examined the specific details of the ceasefire deal. They explain that, despite superficially resembling previous arrangements in southern Lebanon, the new ceasefire agreement contains some critical differences.
Israel has managed to obtain a “letter of guarantee” from the US, recognizing Israeli freedom of action on Lebanese soil in the event of any attempt to strengthen Hezbollah. And eight NATO states (Canada, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the US) will be involved in a new initiative that aims to reinforce the capacity and mobility of the Lebanese armed forces.
Newby and Ruffa write that the new ceasefire agreement promises a precarious peace in region, while simultaneously drawing Nato countries more deeply into the conflict.
This is not a view shared by Marika Sosnowski, a legal expert who studies the terms of ceasefires at the University of Melbourne in Australia. She argues that the terms of the ceasefire provide no details on what will happen at the end of the 60-day period.
And limiting Hezbollah’s ability to rearm during the ceasefire by, for example, demanding the closure of weapons production facilities in southern Lebanon could even expand the conflict.
Sosnowski explains that, since the start of the ceasefire, Israel has targeted sites on Lebanon’s border with Syria. This is a route that Hezbollah’s main backer, Iran, uses to channel weapons to the group.
Irrespective of whether the ceasefire in Lebanon holds, Strawson says that Netanyahu’s major achievement with the deal has been detaching the war in Gaza from the Lebanese front. Hamas may now have to accept the new reality that it is on its own, which leaves Netanyahu’s options in Gaza more open. He has already said the ceasefire will enable Israel to focus its efforts on Hamas fighters there.
Support for Israel’s actions in Gaza has dropped off over the course of the war. Palestinian health officials say the death toll has now surpassed 44,000, with over 100,000 more wounded. Around 90% of the population have been displaced, and hundreds of thousands of people are living in tent camps with little food, water or basic services.
Palestinian officials and rights groups have consistently accused Israeli forces of war crimes and crimes against humanity, a view that is shared by judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Following a long delay, the court last week issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and Hamas military commander, Mohammed Deif.
The judges “found reasonable grounds to believe that they bear criminal responsibility … for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population”.
The decision marks the first time a leader of a Western country has been charged by the ICC. But, according to Catherine Gegout of the University of Nottingham, there is little chance that Netanyahu will appear at the Hague.
Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, who are also wanted for war crimes, have managed to evade the court’s grasp – despite traveling to states that are party to the ICC.
When peace will come to the Middle East, and what it will take to achieve it, remains anyone’s guess.
The fighting in Gaza over the past 12 months has already caused an immense amount of damage. The IDF has reduced much of the Gaza Strip to rubble, with nearly three-quarters of buildings in Gaza City estimated to have been damaged or destroyed. This has, unfortunately, included many of the enclave’s heritage sites.
Researchers Michael Fradley, Bill Finlayson and Andrew Peterson of Oxford and Bradford Universities have been developing a comprehensive inventory of these sites across Gaza. The war has, by their own assessment, damaged around 50% of them, with many structures nearly demolished.
This conflict will not eradicate the rich heritage of Gaza, they write. These buildings have been repeatedly restored and rebuilt over more than a century since the area was first devastated by modern warfare. And they will be again.
Sam Phelps is commissioning editor, International Affairs, The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.