At 4:00am local time on November 27, a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon officially came into effect. This significant step was made possible through the mediation efforts of the United States and France, which developed and proposed a conflict resolution plan.
The agreement outlines comprehensive measures for stabilizing southern Lebanon, where intense clashes had been ongoing between the IDF and the armed group Hezbollah.
According to the agreement, the Lebanese Army is mandated to deploy across the southern territories within the next 60 days, displacing Hezbollah’s forces and infrastructure. The group is required to withdraw north of the Litani River, which is located approximately 20–30 kilometers from the Israeli border at various points.
This arrangement aims to establish a security zone free from Hezbollah’s armed presence, a measure designed to ease tensions along the border. In turn, Israel has committed to fully withdrawing its military forces from Lebanese territory. This process will be conducted in phases under international supervision.
The agreement also provides for the creation of a special international committee to oversee the implementation of these provisions. The US, which has taken a leading role in ensuring stability and adherence to the ceasefire terms, chairs this body. Washington has also pledged to support Israel in the event of imminent threats from Lebanese territory, offering both direct military assistance and proactive measures to prevent the reestablishment of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in southern Lebanon.
What lies ahead for Lebanon?
The ceasefire agreement, while offering temporary relief and a chance to stabilize the region, may trigger complex internal political dynamics within Lebanon. The primary challenge lies in the weakening of Hezbollah – one of the country’s most influential political and military force – which is likely to ignite a power struggle among various political factions and groups. Given that the country is already enduring one of the worst crises in its modern history, such internal tensions could escalate into a serious conflict.
Lebanon’s economic situation remains catastrophic. The financial system is effectively in ruins, the national currency continues to depreciate, and access to basic goods and services is severely limited. Amid this crisis, the central institutions of state governance have weakened significantly, as evidenced by the country’s prolonged inability to elect a new president. The absence of clear leadership and stable governance has created fertile ground for heightened political divisions and conflicts among different groups.
For years, Hezbollah has played a key role not only as an armed force but also as a central player in Lebanon’s political landscape. It has provided social and economic programs, often replacing state services in certain regions. However, the weakening of Hezbollah as a result of the ceasefire agreement with Israel – including its withdrawal from southern areas and limitations on its presence – creates opportunities for other political forces to fill this vacuum, potentially leading to a fierce competition for influence and resources.
The diminished role of Hezbollah could pave the way for other Lebanese political parties and movements, such as Future Movement, Kataeb, the Lebanese Forces, Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), Amal, Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), and Marada, to vie for control. In the absence of a strong leader in southern Lebanon and amidst political instability, these factions may seek to assert themselves, exacerbating internal rivalries.
No comments:
Post a Comment