On Nov. 26, Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah entered into a U.S.-brokered cease-fire agreement aimed at reducing tensions in the region after more than a year of conflict. Under the agreement, Israel will gradually withdraw its forces from Lebanon and Hezbollah will fully withdraw to an area north of the Litani River.
The terms of the cease-fire are essentially a rerun of U.N. Resolution 1701, the deal that ended the 2006 Lebanon war and brought 18 years of tense but semipeaceful coexistence. Although no one expects the new arrangement to last that long, it is an agreement that all the parties needed.
In the past two months, Israel has seen remarkable military and strategic success in its fight with Hezbollah. IDF degraded Hezbollah as a fighting force, decapitated its leadership, destroyed more than half of its missiles, demolished its web of tunnels in southern Lebanon and disrupted its finance systems and supply chains.
Israel’s successes so weakened Hezbollah that in agreeing to the cease-fire Hezbollah was forced to abandon its insistence that it would fight on as long as the Gaza war continues. So now Hamas is left to fight Israel on its own, without the hope of a Hezbollah cavalry coming to its aid.
But Israel’s “win” came at a significant cost. The Israel Defense Forces lost more than 50 soldiers and expended vast amounts of military ordinance in fighting Hezbollah. Israel’s military forces are stretched. Its stockpile of weaponry is diminished. And its war-weary citizenry needs a break.
Because of the cease-fire, Israel has “peace” in the north. But the real test is whether the estimated 70,000 displaced citizens of northern Israel — who were forced to evacuate their homes and businesses because of incessant Hezbollah rocket fire — will feel comfortable returning to rebuild their homes, their cities and their lives. That may not happen that quickly, since many view the cease-fire as an incomplete agreement in which Israel left too much on the table.
The Israeli public is divided on the issue. In a poll just after the cease-fire was announced, 37% of the public was in favor of the cease-fire, 32% were opposed and 31% were unsure. Israelis are concerned that Hezbollah still has tens of thousands of rockets and that no meaningful mechanism is in place to stop Hezbollah from regrouping within Lebanon and pursing its aim of destroying Israel. But for now, there is a fragile peace.
The Biden administration still holds out hope of leveraging the Hezbollah cease-fire to help end the Gaza war. Most analysts are not optimistic. They are probably right. But the U.S. hope is that the model of the Lebanon deal — which involves a cease-fire (which for Gaza would include return of the hostages), strategic withdrawal and deterrence — can be applied to Gaza.
The problem is that Gaza is not Lebanon. And the dominating far-right faction of Israel’s governing coalition wants much more in Gaza than a cessation of fighting. They oppose any move that might empower the Palestinian Authority with a future role in Gaza and they have their eyes focused on reclaiming Gaza.
With no vision for peace in Gaza, there is little hope for recovering the hostages and no prospect for any form of peaceful coexistence. We would prefer a fragile peace.
