Ceasefire in Lebanon is unlikely to bring respite to Gaza, where the onslaught continues

The ceasefire agreed on Wednesday between Israel and Hizbullah may bring peace to Lebanon, at least for a while. It has already received a near unanimous welcome in a country that has seen more than 3,800 people killed and one million people displaced and has suffered in excess of $8.5 billion (€8 billion) in economic costs since the outbreak of the conflict in October of last year. However, it is far less likely to lead to any significant change in the situation in Gaza. Indeed, it almost certainly makes the prospect of a cessation of hostilities there even less likely than before.
Under the terms of the 60-day ceasefire, which was brokered by the United States and France, Hizbullah’s forces will withdraw to the Litani river, some 29km from the Lebanese-Israeli border; in turn, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are to withdraw from Lebanon in stages. The deal envisages that the Lebanese national army and Unifil will be deployed to the south of Lebanon to ensure that Hizbullah does not return to the area, while oversight of the new arrangements will be the responsibility of a new international committee in which the US will play a key role, along with France. The US will also deploy technical advisers to Lebanon while providing additional funding to the Lebanese army.
For the Biden administration, the deal represents a rare, and belated, foreign policy success which follows months of effort to secure an agreement. It is reported that the US threatened Israel that it would not veto a UN Security Council resolution that proposed a ceasefire on terms less advantageous to Israel if it rejected the deal now agreed. For France, it represents an opportunity to assert its continued significance in Lebanon, a country whose very existence is due in large part to French colonial ambitions in the Middle East dating back to the early decades of the 20th century. Israeli press reports suggest that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu initially opposed French involvement in the deal. He viewed France as an unfriendly actor, not least following the French announcement that it would enforce the arrest warrants issued recently by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Netanyahu and his former defence minister Yoav Gallant. However, the subsequent French reversal of that decision – on the basis that Israel was not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the ICC and, therefore, diplomatic immunity would have to be taken into account – eased Israeli objections.
For both sides to the conflict in Lebanon, the ceasefire offers respite, albeit to quite varying levels. Hizbullah has been severely weakened by months of Israeli onslaught, key leaders have been assassinated while dozens of its operatives were killed and nearly 3,000 more injured in September, when hand-held pagers and walkie talkies exploded in attacks mounted by Israel. The ceasefire allows the movement some opportunity to regroup while claiming that it has played a part in ensuring Israeli withdrawal from the south of Lebanon.
On the Israeli side, Netanyahu has justified the decision to approve the deal on a number of grounds, while acknowledging that it did not meet the designated objective of the war in Lebanon – namely the return home of some 60,000 displaced residents of northern Israel. Firstly, according to Netanyahu, it means that his government can turn to tackling Iran, his primary concern. Secondly, the deal provides respite and the opportunity for fresh supplies for the IDF. Thirdly, taking Hizbullah out of the conflict leaves Hamas isolated and makes a deal over the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza more likely.
The ceasefire has attracted a wide level of support in Israel across the political spectrum. It has also been subjected to criticism but none that directly threatens it. Predictably, far-right figures within Netanyahu’s government have been sceptical. National security minister Itamar Ben Gvir asserted that security could only be restored in the north of the country through continued conflict until Hizbullah was destroyed. However, while he has threatened to pull his party out of the ruling coalition several times in the past, he has not issued any such ultimatum this time. The finance minister Bezalel Smotrich stated that no agreement would be worth the paper it is signed on, adding that the deal didn’t interest him.
Following the announcement of the deal, President Biden said the US, together with Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and Israel, would now push for a ceasefire in Gaza in order to secure the release of hostages and an end to the war “without Hamas in power”. Almost simultaneously, it was reported that the US had approved a $680 million arms package to Israel. In addition, the US revealed earlier this month that it had asked Qatar to oust Hamas leaders from the country due to the organisation’s refusal to engage in negotiations. Hamas officials subsequently moved to Turkey while Qatar announced that it was temporarily halting its mediation efforts although it maintained it would be willing to resume if both Israel and Hamas demonstrated a willingness to negotiate in good faith. So far, there has been no indication from Qatar that it believes they have done so.
Hamas has welcomed the Lebanese ceasefire deal, perhaps having no alternative, declaring that it represents a blow to Netanyahu’s ambitions to reshape the Middle East. It also reiterated its commitment to any efforts that would lead to a ceasefire in Gaza so long as this included the withdrawal of Israeli forces, the return of displaced Palestinians and an exchange of prisoners for hostages. However, the likelihood of any such arrangement in the short- to medium-term is low.
[ Lebanon ceasefire: ‘We have no windows, no doors but we can live. Not like other people’Opens in new window ]
As Netanyahu has observed, one of the main reasons for Israel to agree to the ceasefire with Hizbullah was to separate the Lebanese and Gazan fronts so as to isolate Hamas and increase Israeli military pressure on Gaza. And, while Ben Gvir and Smotrich seem willing to put up with the deal in Lebanon, they have vowed to reject anything similar in Gaza. Ben Gvir has expressly rejected any negotiation that would result in the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for hostages, while Smotrich has threatened to bring down the government rather than accept such a deal. Such an outcome would bring Netanyahu closer to his day in court to face charges of fraud, breach of trust and corruption that have been hanging over him for years, and which he has sought to avoid through the prolongation of the conflict in Gaza. Therefore, while recent events may bring relief to the people of Lebanon, there is little immediate prospect of peace for the people of Gaza.
Dr Vincent Durac lectures in Middle East politics in the UCD school of politics and international relations