American presidents Joe Biden and the president-elect Donald Trump They are the main winners of the agreement between Israel and Lebanon. Their combined pressure brought down the two warring governments, but also the terrorist group Hezbollah and Iran.
Biden intended to end his presidency with at least one diplomatic success in the Middle East, while Trump wanted to have a clean table upon his arrival.
The French president, Emmanuel Macronis a partial winner, after months of zigzagging in its policy towards Israel. France’s role in implementing the ceasefire in Lebanon is a trade-off for Macron’s suggested immunity for the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the International Criminal Court.
Netanyahu also partially wins, as he likely won Biden’s approval for the transfer of weapons and ammunition deliveries to Israel. Netanyahu is betting on Trump to gain much-needed support in a future confrontation with Iran and to challenge the Iranian regime’s nuclear project.
“The first reason is to focus on the Iranian threat, and I will not dwell on that,” Netanyahu said in his statement after accepting the deal. However, Netanyahu could pay a political price for this moveopposed by many military experts, opposition political leaders, many in public opinion, and even within his political “base.”
Netanyahu’s other reason for accepting the deal was to separate the fronts and isolate Hamas. There appear to be signs that Hamas is more flexible in negotiating the release of the hostages, but the price remains high and depends on Israel agreeing to withdraw from Gaza.
The Israeli army has carried out a series of highly successful attacks against Hezbollah’s military and political leadership, including its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallahhitting a huge arsenal of missiles and drones, and dismantling part of Hezbollah’s tunnel network in towns adjacent to the border.
But after 14 months of fierce fighting in Gaza and southern Lebanon, the Israel Defense Forces needed to “give its forces a break and replenish stocks,” Netanyahu said.
Although Hezbollah has become a “big loser” in the military arena, the Iran-backed terrorist group still has strategic arsenal, including long-range precise missiles and suicide drones to rebuild its military apparatus.
Thus, Hezbollah remains the main military arm of the Tehran regime against Israel. Iran pushed what remains of Hezbollah’s leadership to accept present defeat in the hope of a future.
For more than a year, Hezbollah waged a war of attrition, leading to the evacuation of more than 70,000 citizens of northern Israel and causing widespread urban and rural devastation.
The Israeli government has promised “internal refugees” that the agreement would allow their return home, as well as the reconstruction of what was destroyed. But most displaced residents do not believe the agreement brings them security and some refuse to return.
Many Lebanese political parties and non-Shia communities hoped the agreement would be based on UN Security Council Resolution 1559 of 2004, which called for the complete disarmament of all Lebanese militias, the most important element for neutralize Hezbollah’s military dominance and political influence in the State.
However, the agreement is based on UNSCR 1701, which only refers to Hezbollah’s withdrawal south of the Litani River.
The Lebanese Army (LAF) must deploy 10,000 soldiers there, tasked with “dismantling all existing unauthorized facilities dedicated to the production of weapons and confiscating all unauthorized weapons.” It remains to be seen whether the LAF will have the capacity and will to do so in the 90% of territory that has not yet been dried up by the IDF. The LAF did not disarm Hezbollah despite the binding provisions of Resolution 1701.
There are many more loopholes in the agreement and some of its secret provisions will only be known after the 60 days scheduled for its implementation.
Ely Karmon is a senior researcher at the International Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT) and a professor at Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel.
