Domestic Tensions in Post-Conflict Lebanon: Navigating the Fragile Ceasefire
In November 2024, a ceasefire concluded the conflict between Hizbollah and Israel, yet tensions remain in Lebanon as discussions on Hizbollah’s disarmament re-emerge. The Lebanese army is tasked with ensuring the group’s demilitarization while managing the return of displaced citizens. The newly elected administration must navigate these challenges while fostering reforms amidst external pressures and potential sectarian conflicts, especially regarding armament discussions.
As of November 2024, a ceasefire has concluded fourteen months of conflict between Hizbollah and Israel. This was initiated following Hamas’s attacks on Israel on October 7. Although the ceasefire was established, tensions persist within Lebanon, with Hizbollah suffering significant blows that emboldened its political adversaries, who are reintroducing the contentious discussion on the disarmament of Hizbollah. While many of the one million displaced Lebanese have returned home, the potential for renewed tensions looms if the ceasefire falters.
The ceasefire mandated that the Lebanese army oversee the disbandment of Hizbollah’s military capabilities, with Israel committing to withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon by late January. In the following months, both Hizbollah and Israel accused each other of ceasefire violations, leading to Israeli troops firing upon Lebanese civilians. Despite these incidents, Hizbollah remains an influential party in Lebanon’s political landscape, asserting a narrative of victory over Israel, while its detractors emphasize the damage caused by the conflict.
Post-war, the Lebanese government must navigate these domestic tensions and adhere to the ceasefire agreement while addressing crucial reforms to improve public welfare. With the election of Joseph Aoun as president and the appointment of Nawaf Salam as prime minister, the new administration seeks to consolidate authority and tackle the ongoing economic crisis. However, Hizbollah’s alignment with the government remains uncertain amidst these developments.
As Hizbollah retains considerable military capabilities, it poses a challenge to the sovereignist faction, which advocates for state power restoration and disarmament of militant groups. Despite facilitating calls for disarmament, the sovereignists recognize Hizbollah’s potential to act violently if coerced. The chance for intra-community conflicts increases as some factions may rally behind Hizbollah should they perceive it is being undermined politically or militarily.
The newly elected Lebanese administration, alongside external entities, must prioritize the maintenance of the truce while carefully navigating disarmament discussions. While U.S. support for the Lebanese army is critical for stability, efforts should avoid alienating Hizbollah to prevent bolstering its domestic appeal. Promoting state respect and institutional strength through investment in the Lebanese army and provision of humanitarian aid is vital for fostering long-term peace and stability in Lebanon.
In conclusion, Lebanon’s political landscape remains fragile following the ceasefire between Hizbollah and Israel. The challenges posed by the war include managing the return of displaced populations and navigating the complex narrative surrounding Hizbollah’s military role. The newly appointed government faces immense pressure to implement reforms while ensuring Hizbollah’s cooperation, with external actors encouraged to support stability rather than exacerbating domestic divisions. The path forward requires cautious negotiation and a focus on strengthening state institutions to facilitate a peaceful resolution.
Original Source: reliefweb.int
