A fragile ceasefire between Hizbollah and Israel has led to ongoing tensions in Lebanon, particularly regarding the disarmament debate. Displaced individuals have returned home, but risks of conflict remain. Lebanon’s new leadership must navigate these challenges while adhering to ceasefire terms. Hizbollah’s military role and its relationship with the state are contentious points amid efforts for reform. External support for the Lebanese army is crucial in establishing stability and preventing violence.
In November 2024, a ceasefire concluded prolonged hostilities between Hizbollah and Israel that had initiated on October 8, a day after Hamas’s attacks from Gaza. Despite the ceasefire, tensions continue to persist in Lebanon. Israel’s military actions against Hizbollah resulted in significant losses, which in turn emboldened political adversaries advocating for the disarmament of Hizbollah, a stipulation of the ceasefire. Approximately one million displaced Lebanese individuals have returned home; however, renewed discontent looms if the ceasefire becomes unstable. Therefore, Lebanese leaders must pursue disarmament through diplomatic dialogue, while external parties should assist with ceasefire adherence and support the Lebanese Armed Forces without meddling in domestic politics.
While the ceasefire between Israel and Hizbollah remains intact, the situation in Lebanon continues to be fraught with challenges. The Lebanese army is tasked with verifying that Hizbollah dismantles military installations following the ceasefire, with Israel expected to withdraw fully by late January. Although the truce is vulnerable, mutual accusations of violations have arisen. In late January, Israel postponed its withdrawal and fired on returning Lebanese civilians, resulting in casualties.
Moreover, the war’s aftermath has awakened tensions surrounding the displacement of Shiite residents. Although the ceasefire has eased some of this hostility, underlying resentments may resurface should the truce falter. Amidst this backdrop, disputes regarding Hizbollah’s future military role have intensified. Two predominant narratives exist: Hizbollah claims victory based on Israel’s acceptance of ceasefire terms, while its opponents criticize the group for instigating the conflict and demand its disarmament.
The newly constituted Lebanese executive is tasked with addressing these tensions while executing the terms of the ceasefire and implementing crucial reforms. In early 2025, the election of army commander Joseph Aoun as president, alongside the establishment of a new cabinet led by Nawaf Salam, concluded a prolonged leadership vacuum. Aoun expressed intentions to restore state authority over weaponry, receiving Hizbollah’s reluctant support due to international pressure for political resolution. Despite the enthusiasm for Aoun’s reform agenda, Hizbollah and its allies may resist these initiatives.
Hizbollah has been a major actor within Lebanon’s political and security realms since the civil war, bolstered by Iranian support. Although the group suffered defeats, it remains perceived as a significant military force. Pre-war estimates indicated Hizbollah maintains up to 50,000 fighters and a substantial arsenal of rockets, despite claims of losses during the conflict. Politically, Hizbollah, alongside the Amal Movement, continues to wield influence, obstructing reforms through its parliamentary presence.
The sovereignist faction acknowledges Hizbollah’s military capacity but perceives an opportunity to enforce disarmament, viewing its weakened position post-war as a chance for political realignment. However, Hizbollah is unlikely to acquiesce to forced disarmament without potential ramifications. Historical patterns reveal that Hizbollah may respond to political pressure with protests or violence, which could heighten sectarian tensions in Lebanon. The forthcoming negotiations on Hizbollah’s disarmament could incite further conflict among affected Shiite communities.
As Lebanon’s political landscape evolves, the focus should be on reinforcing the ceasefire and cautiously navigating disarmament discussions. While the ceasefire has largely been upheld, the uncertain effectiveness of the leadership under the Trump administration poses additional challenges. For regional stability, it is vital that the U.S. supports the Lebanese army, despite reductions in foreign aid, to ensure both parties comply with ceasefire terms amidst ongoing violations.
The political leaders of Lebanon must leverage the cessation of hostilities by exploring possible negotiations among the political factions. A primary goal will be to alleviate Hizbollah’s fears surrounding disarmament, portraying it as a path that does not entail the group’s dissolution. Although this process is likely to be gradual, it remains a more viable route to stability than resorting to confrontation. Lastly, external actors must recognize that attempts to marginalize Hizbollah could inadvertently strengthen its domestic standing, thus fostering greater respect for state institutions through investment in the Lebanese army and humanitarian efforts for reconstruction.
In summary, Lebanon faces ongoing domestic tensions following the ceasefire between Hizbollah and Israel. Political leaders must negotiate Hizbollah’s disarmament through dialogue while addressing the underlying issues that resulted from the conflict, including the resettlement of displaced individuals and economic reforms. The support of external actors, particularly in enhancing the Lebanese Armed Forces, is critical in ensuring stability and preventing further sectarian violence. The current situation calls for cautious engagement and a long-term commitment to rebuilding Lebanon’s political and social fabric.
Original Source: reliefweb.int
