Post-Conflict Lebanon: Navigating Ceasefire Tensions and Reforms
The ceasefire between Hizbollah and Israel in November 2024 ended extensive hostilities but left Lebanon with lingering tensions. The need for Hizbollah’s disarmament has resurfaced, reflecting political divides among Lebanese factions. The new leadership under President Joseph Aoun faces the challenge of navigating these tensions while enforcing the ceasefire and pursuing essential reforms. International support is crucial to foster stability without exacerbating domestic divisions.
In November 2024, a ceasefire concluded fourteen months of conflict initiated by Hizbollah against Israel, which commenced the day following Hamas’s attacks on Israel from Gaza. Despite the cessation of hostilities, tensions persist in Lebanon. Israel significantly weakened Hizbollah, empowering its political adversaries to raise the longstanding issue of the militia’s disarmament, a prerequisite of the ceasefire. The approximately one million displaced Lebanese have mostly returned home, yet potential for renewed strife remains should the ceasefire falter. Political leaders in Lebanon are encouraged to pursue Hizbollah’s disarmament through diplomatic channels, with external actors focusing on maintaining the ceasefire and supporting the Lebanese armed forces while refraining from interference in domestic politics.
The war has left enduring strains within Lebanese society, highlighting tensions primarily among differing sects due to the displacement of Shiite residents. Though the ceasefire has reduced hostilities, underlying animosities persist, particularly among non-Shiite communities. Concurrently, discussions have ignited regarding Hizbollah’s role post-conflict, with opposing factions emerging. One faction perceives Hizbollah as triumphant, believing the militia withstood Israel’s military might. In contrast, its rivals view the militia as detrimental, advocating for disarmament and compliance with the ceasefire terms.
Lebanon’s new leadership must navigate these complexities while implementing the ceasefire commitments and necessary reforms. Following the election of Joseph Aoun as president and the establishment of a new cabinet, there is hope for stability, although Hizbollah’s cooperation is uncertain. The militia, with its historical roots in Lebanese resistance, possesses both political and military influence, complicating disarmament discussions. Despite substantial losses, Hizbollah remains a powerful entity that can potentially obstruct political processes, maintaining veto power within the sectarian power-sharing framework.
Sovereignist factions acknowledge Hizbollah’s military superiority but anticipate conflicts are unlikely. They perceive this moment as an opportunity to challenge Hizbollah’s access to arms while remaining wary of potential backlash. Attempts to enforce disarmament may provoke Hizbollah to adopt destabilizing measures, potentially igniting sectarian violence if Shiite support rallies around the militia. As discussions on Hizbollah’s future unfold, the focus should be on consolidating the ceasefire while cautiously addressing disarmament issues.
While the ceasefire remains largely intact, it is marred by mutual accusations of violations. The United States’ approach towards Lebanon remains uncertain following recent policy shifts. To promote regional stability, it is crucial for the U.S. to support the Lebanese army and pressure both sides to adhere to ceasefire obligations. Despite Israel’s extended strategic presence in southern Lebanon, Lebanese political leaders should utilize the conflict’s resolution as a chance to foster negotiations among political factions, especially encouraging Hizbollah to consider a disarmament path that does not equate to its annihilation. Strengthening state institutions through international support will ultimately aid in stabilizing Lebanon and enhancing public trust in governance.
In conclusion, the ceasefire has ended the immediate conflict between Hizbollah and Israel, but it has opened up significant political and social challenges for Lebanon. The new leadership faces the urgent task of disarming Hizbollah through negotiation and ensuring that the interests of various sectarian groups are addressed to avoid future violence. Meanwhile, external support must focus on strengthening Lebanon’s institutions, particularly the military, while remaining sensitive to the complexities of the local political landscape.
Original Source: reliefweb.int
