The ceasefire between Hizbollah and Israel in November 2024 ended a lengthy conflict but left underlying tensions in Lebanon, notably regarding Hizbollah’s disarmament and integration of displaced populations. New political leadership aims to navigate these challenges while ensuring compliance with ceasefire terms and addressing economic strife. The fragility of the ceasefire and Hizbollah’s residual influence complicate Lebanon’s recovery and stability efforts.
In November 2024, a ceasefire concluded over a year of conflict between Hizbollah and Israel, which began following Hamas’s attacks on Israel. Although the ceasefire was established, tensions persist within Lebanon, with Hizbollah’s adversaries advocating for its disarmament—a stipulation of the ceasefire. Approximately one million displaced Lebanese have returned home, yet underlying tensions could resurface if the ceasefire falters.
The ceasefire stipulated that the Lebanese army would disband Hizbollah’s military presence while Israel committed to withdrawing troops from southern Lebanon. Although conditions allowed for many displaced to return, their reintegration remains strained, particularly among non-Shiite communities wary of civil discord should stability fail. Despite an apparent peace, both Hizbollah and Israel have accused each other of violations, with Israel delaying its troop withdrawal, triggering violence against Lebanese civilians.
Amid these challenges, debates concerning Hizbollah’s future role in Lebanon have intensified. Two central narratives have emerged from the conflict: Hizbollah claims victory for surviving extensive Israeli assaults, while its opponents accuse the group of irresponsibly escalating tensions that led to devastating losses. Proponents for disarming Hizbollah argue for the state to reclaim its authority, while the militia’s supporters resist disarmament that might endanger their political influence.
In early 2025, the Lebanese political landscape changed with the election of army commander Joseph Aoun as president and a new cabinet led by Nawaf Salam, who plans to address Lebanon’s severe economic crises. Aoun’s agenda includes reasserting the state’s control over armed factions, but Hizbollah’s response remains uncertain as internal opposition looms over potential reforms. Hindered by residual political influence, Hizbollah could react unfavorably to perceived threats, risking instability.
Sovereignists believe they have a unique opportunity to reduce Hizbollah’s power, considering its recent setbacks. However, the risk of Hizbollah responding with destabilizing actions looms, as the community may galvanize in support of the group under pressure. The intricate balance among factions poses challenges for Lebanon’s new leadership in managing Hizbollah’s military status while preventing renewed hostilities.
Outside actors, notably the United States, must continue to support the Lebanese army while encouraging compliance with ceasefire terms. As Israel maintains key positions in southern Lebanon, pressure mounts for Lebanese leaders to find common ground for meaningful negotiations regarding Hizbollah’s future. A strategic approach emphasizing disarmament without dismantling the group entirely could prove more fruitful in achieving long-term stability in Lebanon.
In conclusion, Lebanon’s post-conflict scenario requires careful negotiation regarding Hizbollah’s disarmament amid lingering domestic tensions. The ceasefire remains fragile, necessitating support from external actors to ensure compliance and promote stability. Lebanon’s political leaders face the challenge of balancing power dynamics and fostering an environment conducive to reform and recovery within the country. With collective efforts aimed at strengthening national governance, a pathway toward a more cohesive and secure Lebanon may emerge.
Original Source: reliefweb.int
