The truce deal between Iran-backed Hezbollah and Israel has been described as a temporary halt to hostilities in Lebanon, but some experts believe it is a 'ceasefire under pressure' that fails to address the core issues of the regional conflict. The agreement, brokered by the US and France, is seen as a move to reduce tensions in the region, although it only brings the situation back to a status quo.
Former Pentagon Middle East advisor Jasmine El-Gamal highlighted the pressure exerted on both Israel and Hezbollah to reach this deal. The US has been pushing for an end to the fighting, while Hezbollah has faced significant losses in its leadership due to Israeli assassinations.
Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israeli territory, following a similar attack by Hamas, led to the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The 60-day ceasefire, based on UN Security Council Resolution 1701 that ended the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war, aims to establish a lasting truce. The terms require Israel to withdraw its forces and limit armed groups south of the Litani river to the Lebanese military and UN peacekeeping forces.
One key aspect of the agreement is the enhanced supervision of Hezbollah's movements by the Lebanese government to prevent militant regrouping in the region. However, El-Gamal noted that Hezbollah has historically resisted the authority of the Lebanese military.
While the ceasefire offers a temporary reprieve, there are concerns that both Hezbollah and Israel may use this period to regroup and rearm. The hope is that this agreement will pave the way for a more sustainable peace in the region.
