The Netanyahu government had Hezbollah on the ropes after a stunningly impressive military campaign. Is a truce now a mistake?
The terms of the cease-fire deal to which Israel and Lebanon agreed on Tuesday are still somewhat vague as of this writing.
According to media reports, a full and permanent cessation of hostilities in Lebanon will begin immediately. Sixty days from today, all Israeli forces should be withdrawn from Lebanese territory, with the initial drawdown to begin no later than December 6. But it is not entirely clear who will police the portions of Lebanon north of the Israeli border and south of the Litani River, from which Hezbollah had been expelled by the Israel Defense Forces.
“Under the proposed deal, Lebanese forces and United Nations peacekeepers are expected to jointly patrol southern Lebanon to ensure the terms of the agreement are adhered to,” CBS News reported. “Earlier reports suggested the southern region would be monitored by a multi-nation committee, which would include both the U.S. and France.” Paris’s involvement in peacekeeping efforts could be complicated by the Emmanuel Macron government’s promise — to which Israel has understandably objected — to enforce an International Criminal Court warrant for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister. But these are the terms as we understand them for the time being.
The problem with this arrangement is that Israel was never at war with the Lebanese government. It embarked on a campaign of hostilities against Hezbollah, a distinct terrorist entity over which Beirut has limited influence. The goal of the Israeli government’s pivot to the northern front in the wars inaugurated by the 10/7 massacre was to degrade Hezbollah’s capacity to project force across the Israeli border so that the tens of thousands of Israelis displaced by terrorist rocket and mortar fire could return home.
The deal, which treats Hezbollah as an adjacent third party to the conflict, compels it to end its armed presence near Israel and relocate its heavy weapons north of the Litani. That’s a familiar demand — one that is codified in the tragically unenforced United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. Perhaps that’s why the terrorist entity does not seem all that displeased by recent developments. “Hassan Fadlallah, a senior Hezbollah official and member of parliament, told Reuters on Tuesday that the group will remain active after its war with Israel ends,” CNN reporters wrote.
If UNSC 1701 had been worth the paper on which it was written, this agreement wouldn’t have had to be reached at all. The resolution forbade the presence of any armed personnel south of the Litani save Lebanese forces and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Obviously, neither the U.N. nor the Lebanese seriously engaged in the effort to force Hezbollah to observe the resolution’s terms. Why should we expect a more serious effort now by the attenuated Lebanese government? Why would “a multi-nation committee” be any more effective at “monitoring” (distinct from “enforcing”) developments north of the Israeli border than U.N. peacekeepers?
As Middle East Eye reported, these nagging questions are being asked in Israel today, and the answers have not satisfied the Israeli public. “The withdrawal of forces now, and the dynamic that will be created, will make it difficult for us and will make it easier for Hezbollah to regroup,” wrote Benny Gantz, leader of the Israeli opposition and onetime member of Netanyahu’s unity wartime government. “We will not accept an arrangement that will not provide full protection for our residents,” said Gabi Naaman, head of a council of mayors of northern Israeli towns. Eitan Davidi, another representative of Israel’s northern communities, accused the government of executing “a complete disconnect with the residents of the north.” As one Israeli reporter, Yossi Yehoshua, observed, for Israel to pull back now “is not a victory and certainly not a complete victory.” The peace agreement, as these critics see it, represents Israeli capitulation in the war it was prosecuting so adroitly.
It’s a reasonable critique of the Israeli government’s approach. The Netanyahu government had Hezbollah on the ropes after one of the most impressive military campaigns in recent memory, only to grant the terrorist entity a new lease on life at the last minute. Even though the Israeli public is split on the value of a diplomatic settlement to the conflict with Hezbollah, the Netanyahu government is not expected to collapse as a result of this agreement. It is, therefore, “something of a political victory,” according to one Israeli political analyst. That remains to be seen.