A much-anticipated ceasefire in Lebanon has brought a moment of respite to the war-torn region, though underlying tensions suggest a fragile and uncertain peace. For the people of Lebanon, the cessation of hostilities could not come soon enough. A leading Lebanese analyst attending a Middle East conference in Rome likened the anticipation of the ceasefire to the excitement of a child on Christmas Eve, expressing immense relief as the appointed hour arrived.
The Israeli strikes have left a profound humanitarian crisis in Lebanon, with over 3,500 citizens killed and more than one million displaced. Thousands have been wounded, and tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed. As the ceasefire took effect, displaced families packed their belongings in the early hours, eager to return to their homes—or what remains of them.
In Israel, the ceasefire has sparked mixed emotions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced criticism during a heated meeting with leaders of Israel’s northern municipalities, which had become ghost towns following the evacuation of approximately 60,000 civilians. Some officials expressed frustration, arguing that the ceasefire offered relief to Hezbollah without adequately addressing the security concerns of Israeli citizens.
A recent poll conducted by Channel 12 News revealed a nation divided, with opinions split on the ceasefire’s merits. While half of respondents believe Hezbollah has not been fully defeated, 30% fear the agreement will collapse.
The ceasefire agreement, rooted in the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, calls for Hezbollah to retreat from the border, to be replaced by UN peacekeepers and the Lebanese Armed Forces. In return, Israeli forces are to gradually withdraw. Although similar discussions had surfaced at the UN General Assembly in September, the process was delayed by a significant escalation: the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and other top commanders by Israeli forces.
The assassination of Nasrallah marked a turning point, severely weakening Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities. Israel’s subsequent operations inflicted substantial damage on Hezbollah’s infrastructure, including the destruction of arms depots and tunnel networks. Netanyahu framed the ceasefire as an opportunity to “replenish stocks” and focus on broader regional threats, notably Iran.
Iran, a key backer of Hezbollah, has also sought the ceasefire to regroup and mitigate strategic losses. The conflict has eroded Iran’s deterrent capabilities, which were built to dissuade attacks on both Lebanon and Iran itself. The assassinations of Soleimani in 2020 and now Nasrallah have left Iran’s axis of resistance significantly weakened.
The ceasefire in Lebanon is unlikely to pave the way for peace in Gaza, where Israel’s objectives are more complex and deeply rooted in the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Netanyahu’s government remains steadfast in its rejection of Palestinian aspirations for independence, adding layers of complexity to the already volatile region.
As the Middle East awaits the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump, uncertainty looms. While some hope for a diplomatic breakthrough akin to President Nixon’s historic visit to China, others fear an escalation of unilateral actions, including potential annexations in the West Bank and northern Gaza.
The Lebanon ceasefire, though a welcome pause, underscores the unresolved political fractures that continue to fuel cycles of violence. Without addressing the core issues—chief among them the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—the region risks perpetuating generations of war and suffering. The ceasefire is a temporary reprieve, not a lasting solution, and the Middle East remains on edge as it navigates this fragile peace.