US’s Lebanon ceasefire proposal met with scepticism on all sides

On Wednesday, US special envoy Amos Hochstein travelled from Lebanon to Israel to continue ceasefire negotiations after making “additional progress” during a second day of talks with lawmakers representing Hezbollah in Beirut.

Hochstein, who is leading the outgoing Biden administration’s efforts to end 14 months of war, said he was hopeful that the trip to Israel would “bring [the ceasefire deal] to a close if we can”.

The diplomacy seeks to end a conflict between Israeli forces and the Iranian-supported militia group, in which Israel has launched its fifth ground invasion of Lebanon and killed several senior Hezbollah commanders, including long-time leader Hassan Nasrallah.

The US-proposed deal is based on the re-implementation of a UN resolution that ended the 2006 Lebanon war fought between Israel and Hezbollah.

UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1701 stipulates no paramilitary activities by Hezbollah in the buffer zone south of Lebanon’s Litani river, which is located 32 kilometres north of the Israeli border. While Israeli forces would withdraw from Lebanon under the deal, they would retain the ability to strike targets that they consider a threat.

The resolution was first passed in 2006, following Israel’s most recent invasion of southern Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of IDF soldiers. Attempts since then to enforce the resolution have been widely criticised as ineffective, and many analysts doubt that this time around will be any different, even if all sides agree to the deal.

Bad blood on both sides

Walid Phares, a Lebanese-American former Middle East advisor to Donald Trump who remains close with the US President-elect, told Euronews that the proposal wouldn’t lead to any meaningful cessation of fighting while Hezbollah maintains a presence in southern Lebanon.

“The current proposed deal to stop the war between Hezbollah and Israel is based on the premise that both sides would apply UNSCR 1701,” he noted, adding that the resolution “has not been implemented since 2006, thus if not modified, it won’t work”.

For Phares, this is because the resolution has no provision for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), a peacekeeping mission established in 1978, to militarily force Hezbollah to withdraw from near the Israeli border.

“UNIFIL has no Chapter 7 mandate to stop Hezbollah or any allied militia to return to the south, as they’ve done in 2000, in 1996, 2006, and since,” he said, referring to a chapter of the UN Charter which enables the United Nations “to take urgent military measures” in order to “maintain or restore international peace and security”.

Phares said that he believed that the older UN resolution 1559, “which calls for disarming all militias” in Lebanon including Hezbollah, was the only way to reach a meaningful cessation of hostilities. The current proposals “would simply be a postponement of the conflict and would ultimately harm the Lebanese population, security in the region, and stability”.

Trita Parsi, an Iranian-American co-founder of The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft — a think tank — also viewed the proposals as ineffective but said that he saw unwillingness from Israel as the greatest obstacle. “The main problem is that Israel’s idea of a ceasefire is one in which Israel does not need to cease fire,” Parsi said.

The former executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, agreed. “It’s basically telling Hezbollah don’t shoot, but we will periodically shoot,” he told Euronews.

“That’s a one-sided agreement, that’s not a ceasefire,” he added.

A representative for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declined to provide comment to Euronews.

ADVERTISEMENT

Iran: down but not out

Authorities in Tehran are reportedly pushing for Hezbollah to accept the terms of the ceasefire. Although Iran has engaged in the conflict at times, including firing 180 ballistic missiles at Israel in October, many analysts say that the Islamic Republic is trying to not escalate the wider war.

“The Islamic regime in Iran at this point wants to reach ceasefire in Gaza, Lebanon and in general terms across the region. It is in their interest to do so,” said Phares, pointing to the country’s relations with China and Russia as well as the US as a contributing factor.

This was echoed by Parsi.

“Iran is facing a lot of problems at home and its priority has been sanctions relief through a deal with the US, not a regional war with Israel,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

And Hezbollah’s severe weakening by Israel has only entrenched this position in Tehran, according to the analysts.

As Roth explained, Iran saw Hezbollah as its “sledgehammer” against Israel — but that “that sledgehammer has turned out to be a toothpick”.

‘No credibility left’: Biden’s uphill battle

Hochstein is a close ally of US President Joe Biden, and some see the ceasefire negotiations as a last-ditch attempt by the outgoing administration to leave a legacy in the region that includes the return of peace.

However, for many experts, any possible ceasefire deal in Lebanon will be overshadowed by the ongoing war in Gaza and a region that remains more volatile and less stable than it has been in decades.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Biden was a huge disappointment,” Roth said, referring to the US president’s actions in the region. As Hochstein arrived in Israel, the US vetoed the latest UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. “That was utterly unnecessary. There’s no electoral cost to Biden,” added Roth.

On the topic of Biden, Parsi was even more direct — saying that “he has completely caved to Israel” and calling the US president “more (like) Israel’s lawyer than an actual mediator”. He concluded that Biden and the US have “no credibility left in the Middle East outside of Israel”.

‘Wildcard’: Trump shakes things up

However, both Roth and Parsi were doubtful about whether Trump would be able to change things in his second term.

“No one knows what direction Trump will go,” Parsi said. Trump needs “de-escalation in the Middle East, which necessitates reining in Israel,” including in Lebanon, he added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Roth conceded that “Trump has enormous leverage over Netanyahu. The question is, will he exercise it?”

“The big question is whether Trump greenlights large-scale forced displacement in Gaza. You know, does he greenlight another Nakba? He’s got a history of giving Netanyahu most of what he wants,” Roth added.

Yet not all analysts were so pessimistic.

Phares, who was with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on the weekend for a “social occasion”, said he expected and hoped that “the next four years will bring peace, stability and a greater US unity and consensus for US foreign policy”.

ADVERTISEMENT

The advisor noted that his vote for Trump in the presidential election this month was “based on the rejection of the Iran Deal, [and to] counter jihadism”. Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal at the start of his first term as US president in 2017.

Michael Stephens, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute — a London-based think tank — called Trump a “wild card”, but pointed to Netanyahu’s respect for the US President-elect.

“Trump has said to Netanyahu that this needs to be over by the time he gets into office. No more conflict, no more violence. I think Netanyahu has more or less understood that if he’s going to stay in Trump’s good books for four years, he’s got to do something about it,” Stephens said.

Overall, though, Stephens was less positive. “It’s a very sad state of affairs, but it’s the one we’re in.”

ADVERTISEMENT