A ceasefire in November 2024 ended hostilities between Hizbollah and Israel, but tensions in Lebanon remain, particularly surrounding Hizbollah’s disarmament. The situation is complicated by the return of displaced Shiite residents and polarized political narratives. Lebanon’s new leaders must navigate these challenges while implementing reforms, with international support focused on strengthening the military and fostering dialogue.
In November 2024, a ceasefire concluded 14 months of conflict between Hizbollah and Israel, sparked by Hamas’s attacks from Gaza. Although hostilities ceased, tensions in Lebanon persist, particularly regarding Hizbollah’s disarmament, a condition of the ceasefire. Many Lebanese displaced by the war have returned home, but underlying animosities could resurface if the ceasefire falters. It is critical for Lebanese leaders to engage Hizbollah through negotiation over confrontation, supported by international actors who should avoid meddling in domestic politics.
Following the conflict, the ceasefire stipulated that the Lebanese army would ensure Hizbollah could not maintain military capabilities. Israel was expected to withdraw from southern Lebanon by late January, yet this withdrawal was delayed, leading to further violence and casualties. While a fragile truce endures, accusations of violations by both sides pose risks, highlighting the precarious nature of the ceasefire and its potential to ignite further unrest.
Critical issues include the social tensions stemming from the displacement of predominantly Shiite residents. Many in Lebanon harbor resentments towards these returnees, which could heighten tensions if the ceasefire collapses. Additionally, the political landscape has become polarized, with opposing narratives about Hizbollah’s role, depicting it as either a victor or a reckless aggressor. Supporters of a stronger state demand that Hizbollah honor the ceasefire and disarm.
Lebanon’s new leadership, including President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam, must manage these tensions while implementing necessary reforms. Aoun’s commitment to restore state control over arms may be complicated by Hizbollah’s entrenched power and resistance. Although many Lebanese support reform efforts, Hizbollah’s influence in parliament and the government may obstruct progress, given its capability to disrupt the political process through its military might and political leverage.
While sovereignists recognize Hizbollah’s military capacity, they believe the likelihood of armed confrontation remains low, viewing the group’s recent losses as limiting its options. They see this period as an opportunity to challenge Hizbollah’s arms access without provoking violence. However, aggressive disarmament tactics could backfire, rallying Shiite support for Hizbollah and increasing the potential for conflict.
Strategic negotiations are crucial as Lebanon’s leaders navigate the ceasefire conditions and disarmament issues. Although the ceasefire has largely been maintained, both sides have reported breaches. The U.S. must continue its military support for Lebanon and encourage all parties to comply with the ceasefire terms, particularly amid ongoing tensions related to territorial control and military presence in southern Lebanon.
In conclusion, Lebanon’s political leaders face the task of leveraging the ceasefire’s end to foster dialogue between factions and promote disarmament that ensures Hizbollah’s survival rather than its eradication. International support should focus on strengthening the Lebanese military while avoiding actions that could bolster Hizbollah’s domestic standing. This approach could ultimately lead to greater stability and a unified commitment to rebuilding the war-torn nation.
The article outlines the fragile ceasefire in Lebanon after months of conflict involving Hizbollah and Israel. Persistent domestic tensions and calls for Hizbollah’s disarmament complicate the political landscape. Lebanon’s new leadership faces the challenge of unifying the country while ensuring a strategic approach to disarmament. International support should bolster state institutions to foster stability and reconstruction efforts without undermining local dynamics.
Original Source: reliefweb.int
