The 10-day cessation of hostilities between Lebanon and Israel last week was welcomed by many people, not least by a Lebanese population, particularly a Shiite population, that had sustained weeks of withering bombardment by Israel. However, whether it can be extended and bring a measure of peace to Lebanon is uncertain.
The purpose of the cessation of hostilities – the term used in the formal declaration of the agreement, instead of “ceasefire” – was to “enable good-faith negotiations towards a permanent security and peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon”.
The cessation of hostilities followed a meeting on April 14 in Washington between the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors, under the sponsorship of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The meeting sought to establish a framework for future meetings between Lebanese and Israeli officials, following statements by Lebanon’s president and prime minister that Beirut was open to direct negotiations with Israel.
The prospect of Lebanese-Israeli peace excites many people in Washington and even certain parts of Lebanon. Evidently, even US President Donald Trump appears to be interested, not least because it may provide him with a diplomatic victory amid global and domestic American criticism of his war with Iran. However, it’s best not to get carried away, as moving too quickly in Lebanon may undermine the whole process.
In entering negotiations, Lebanese officials affirmed their emancipation from Iran’s influence over Lebanon, which Tehran exercises through its refusal to allow Hezbollah’s disarmament. It is surely Iran that ordered the group into the conflict with Israel on March 2, and it is believed Hezbollah has been led by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers since the decimation of its military leadership in 2024.
While the motive of the Lebanese is understandable, their optimism may be less so. Today, Lebanon is at the centre of a struggle between Iran and Israel for effective domination of the country, and its society is deeply divided over peace talks. The idea that such talks will advance without serious tensions is a fantasy, even more so as the US and Israelis are pushing the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah, by force if needed.
One of the conditions of the cessation of hostilities is that the army must secure “exclusive responsibility for Lebanon’s sovereignty and national defence; no other country or group has claim to be the guarantor of Lebanon’s sovereignty”. In other words, the armed forces have to take control of Hezbollah’s weapons.
Given Hezbollah’s refusal to give up its arsenal, and the fact that Iran is unlikely to accede to this because it would be tantamount to losing its Lebanon card, it’s unclear how the Lebanese authorities can proceed while avoiding conflict.
The armed forces commander, Rodolphe Haykal, is reluctant to throw his troops into a confrontation with Hezbollah, knowing it may morph into one with a significant portion of the Shiite community. This has made him the target of severe criticism from influential officials in Washington, and observers believe this is his last chance to show his mettle.
But Gen Haykal’s reservations are well founded. Little attention has been given to Lebanon’s Shiite community, which will have a decisive say in peace with Israel. Worse, there appears to be an impression among certain officials in the US, Israel and even Beirut, that if Lebanon and Israel move quickly, they might be able to impose a fait accompli before Iran, Hezbollah and the Lebanese who support them respond in an organised way.
Such thinking is risky. As one individual who may play a role in negotiations with Israel explained privately: “If things move too quickly, because some people want to turn Lebanon-Israeli negotiations into a photo opportunity, the whole process may break.” Indeed, without a domestic consensus on peace, major obstacles are likely to emerge and derail the negotiating process.
Lebanon’s Shiite community feels acutely vulnerable today, which will shape its behaviour towards steps interpreted as bulldozing it. Many of its areas have been destroyed, Lebanon’s other sectarian communities are antagonistic to Hezbollah for having carried Lebanon into its third war with Israel in two decades, and next-door Syria is led by a Salafi regime opposing Hezbollah for having bolstered the former Assad establishment.
-
A man stands in the rubble of a building destroyed in an overnight Israeli air strike on Haret Hreik, in Beirut's southern suburbs. AFP -
Emergency workers at the site of an Israeli air strike on an apartment building in Haret Saida, on the outskirts of Sidon. AFP -
A banner bearing portraits of slain Hezbollah leaders Hassan Nasrallah, left, and Hashem Safieddine at the site of a strike on Burj Al Barajneh, in Beirut's southern suburbs. AFP -
Damage from an Israeli air strike in Haret Hreik. AFP -
Downed power lines and destroyed buildings in Beirut’s southern suburbs. AFP -
Emergency personnel tackle a fire after an apartment building in Haret Saida was hit. AFP -
A man holds missile debris in Haret Saida. EPA -
Plumes of smoke rise following Israeli strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, seen from Baabda. Reuters -
The aftermath of an Israeli air strike in Haret Hreik. AFP -
Emergency workers respond after an apartment was hit in Beirut's Burj Hammoud suburb. AFP -
A damaged building in Burj Hammoud. AFP
In light of this, the community will probably regard any steps to advance peace with Israel as efforts to marginalise the Shiite community at a moment of supreme weakness. They may well resist this, creating the possibility of unrest in Lebanon and even civil war.
It’s best to proceed slowly in the months ahead and engage in talks with the Shiite community, particularly through the leading Shiite figure in the state, Nabih Berri, the parliament speaker. Its starting point would be the state’s imposition of a monopoly over weapons. This can conceivably be accompanied by discussions over reform of the political system to underline there is no intention of marginalising Shiites. Crucially, the Lebanese must also ensure regional backing for their peace efforts.
At the same time, the army has to engage in targeted interventions that claw back spaces hitherto controlled by Hezbollah. This can involve deployments in areas just north of those Israel is occupying to deny Hezbollah territory from where to attack the Israelis while negotiations continue. Most fundamentally, leading figures in the state must communicate their vision and garner popular support for peace talks.
If Lebanon is to come out of an Iranian-Israeli struggle for power undamaged, the process should be given the time and attention it requires. Rushing matters with Israel on a US timetable will fail. Lebanon is too divided and complicated a society to presume that the outcome of a poorly planned approach will be a successful one.
