news

The Cradle: 60 days of uncertainty: Can the Israel–Hezbollah ceasefire hold out?

In the early hours of 27 November, the shaky ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, brokered by the US and France, with widespread international and regional support, came into effect. The fragile truce was immediately met with skepticism by many Israelis – officials and civilians – who doubted their country’s ability to follow through.

Some officials openly labeled the deal a defeat against Hezbollah and placed the blame squarely on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for failing to achieve both the stated and hidden objectives of his war on Lebanon – particularly the goals of eliminating the resistance movement and returning hundreds of thousands of displaced settlers back to the north. A poll conducted by Israel's Channel 12 revealed that over 80 percent of Netanyahu’s support base opposed the ceasefire. Residents in northern Israel, many of whom were evacuated due to Hezbollah's strikes, also expressed outrage. Domestically, Israel was deeply divided over the agreement, with polls showing 37 percent supporting the ceasefire and 32 percent opposing it.

False sense of victory

The shock among Israeli elites following the prime minister's endorsement of the truce agreement was due to a false sense of victory. Netanyahu, along with former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, had misled them into believing that the Israeli military had destroyed 80 percent of Hezbollah’s missile capabilities, giving the impression that the Lebanese resistance movement was on the brink of collapse. Israelis watched in humiliation as Hezbollah prevented five enemy divisions from advancing more than three to five kilometers into Lebanese territory – an advance that was, anyway, tactically insignificant, as the divisions should have penetrated 20 kilometers deep.

Strategically, Hezbollah continued to target Israeli military assets well beyond the border, reaching as far as the Ashdod naval base, 150 kilometers inside Israel, and maintaining blistering attacks on key cities like Haifa and Tel Aviv. These strikes severely disrupted daily life inside the most populated centers of the occupation state, paralyzing military operations and showing Israel that eliminating Hezbollah was not a feasible war goal. Hezbollah’s missiles even reached Tel Aviv, reinforcing a "Beirut–Tel Aviv" deterrence equation. Netanyahu ultimately conceded that diplomacy was his only viable solution, particularly given the growing issues within the occupation military itself: exhaustion, injuries, munitions shortages, and limited progress.

Israel’s 60-day strategy

The unease within Israel over this agreement has led Netanyahu and new Defense Minister Israel Katz to direct the army to develop a new strategy within the next 60 days, a period stipulated in the agreement for Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanese territory. This strategy involves two main actions: first, conducting targeted airstrikes on Hezbollah positions both inside and beyond the area south of the Litani River, and second, preventing Lebanese residents from returning to villages and towns within a 10-kilometer range of the border.

The airstrike directive is meant to reaffirm Israel's military freedom of action, in part to assure the Israeli public that occupation forces retain their ability to strike Hezbollah when necessary. This controversial clause, which Lebanon completely rejected, was part of private, unseen US guarantees to Tel Aviv, given without Beirut's consent. Netanyahu aims to portray Israel as having accepted the agreement from a position of strength while buying time until the five-member Monitoring Committee begins its work on addressing ceasefire violations. During the next 60 days, the presence of occupation forces in Lebanon will keep tensions high, requiring close monitoring of Hezbollah to ensure the security of these troops until their full withdrawal.

The decision to prevent Lebanese residents of border areas from returning to their homes aims to avoid an awkward contrast between the resettlement of southern Lebanese residents while the displacement of northern Israelis continues. Those optics would be politically damaging for the Israeli government.

Managing withdrawal and maintaining strength

In essence, the Israeli military’s strategy over the coming 60 days revolves around maintaining a veneer of strength and managing the delicate withdrawal process, which will conclude with the Lebanese army, in coordination with UNIFIL, taking full control of the region’s security. Afterward, the Monitoring Committee will enforce compliance with UN Resolution 1701, which prohibits Israeli military actions within Lebanon. This was confirmed by Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem in his last speech when he announced his commitment to the agreement and that coordination with the Lebanese army would be at the highest level.

If Israel insists on continuing to violate the agreement based on US guarantees that Lebanon has neither seen nor accepted – and continues to launch attacks under the oversight of the Monitoring Committee and its American chair, it could provoke a reciprocal response from Lebanon and possibly lead to a resumption of hostilities. Hezbollah has already fired a warning shot on 2 December, targeting Israeli-occupied Lebanese territory. This comes after Israel has violated the ceasefire dozens of times since it went into effect seven days ago. Tel Aviv responded disproportionately to the single Hezbollah retaliation, striking a number of sites across Lebanon. CNN itself admits, citing a UN peacekeeping source, to over 100 violations as of 3 December.

But both Israel and Lebanon need this agreement: their two-month military confrontation underscored that a continued war would only lead to further exhaustion and unsustainable losses on both sides. The ceasefire also came about due to international pressure, particularly from the US – a principal mediator – which sought to end a conflict that had become an embarrassment due to Israel’s disregard for international law and civilian lives. Despite ongoing violations, including artillery shelling, air raids, and drone activity, the agreement appears poised to stabilize the situation due to mutual necessity. For Israel, continued conflict would only lead to greater attrition, while Lebanon benefits from halting aggression and ensuring stability along the border.

Given these circumstances, it seems likely that the agreement will hold, benefiting all parties. Any violations should be addressed by the Monitoring Committee, which will aim to restore stability along the border, especially after the 60-day period and the full deployment of the Lebanese army.