The Irish Times view on the ceasefire deal in Lebanon: a precarious peace

The deal is not a long-term agreement, but the framework for a 60-day ceasefire, with Unifil set to play an important role in implementation

People watch television in Beirut on Tuesday as Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu announces the ceasefire. (Photo by Ed Ram/Getty Images)
People watch television in Beirut on Tuesday as Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu announces the ceasefire. (Photo by Ed Ram/Getty Images)

Agreement on Tuesday by Israel’s security cabinet to the US-brokered Lebanon ceasefire deal is welcome, if a long time coming. Although Hizbullah is not a formal party to the deal, its willingness to withdraw forces from south of the Litani river as Israel pulls its troops from the country should close a chapter opened by Israel’s invasion in September, followed by intensified bombing which has killed about 3,500 Lebanese people.

The deal, still to be signed off by Lebanon’s government, is not a peace agreement, but the framework for a 60-day ceasefire that will see a cordon sanitaire established from the Litani river to the Israeli border. The US and France said on Tuesday evening that they would work with both sides to implement the deal. Its provisions are essentially those set out in 2006 in UN Resolution 1701 which ended the Israel-Hizbullah war and which provided unsuccessfully for the withdrawal of Hizbullah to north of the Litani.

The deal will also see the deployment south of the river and close to the Israeli border of 15,000 Lebanese army soldiers alongside UN peacekeepers, including the Irish Unifil contingent, the return of 60,000 inhabitants, the creation of a zone free of militants and unauthorised weapons, and the prohibition of selling weapons to Lebanon, except those approved by the government.

Given the weakness of the Lebanese army and the danger of civil war should it confront Hizbullah forces in the south, the role of Iran in restraining Hizbullah will be particularly important.

READ SOME MORE

Israel’s demand that it should be permitted to re-enter Lebanon in the event of Hizbullah breaches of the agreement has not been explicitly conceded although there are reports it may have secured an unacknowledged nod from the US. But the agreement explicitly provides for oversight by an international monitoring committee including representatives of the Lebanese and Israeli armies, the US, the French and Unifil.

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has faced opposition to the deal and Israel remains no closer to agreeing a ceasefire in Gaza. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, head of the far-right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Strength), described the emerging agreement with Lebanon as “a big mistake” representing a “historic missed opportunity to eradicate” Hizbullah.

And Hizbullah will not be disarmed. Its guns, its long-range and short-range missiles, its drones, and all its other military infrastructure will continue to exist north of the Litani. The organisation remains an integral part of the Lebanese government which, unrealistically, is supposed to guarantee that its threat is neutralised.

Such unresolved ambiguities and disputes will make the continued presence of Unifil, with its Irish contingent, particularly important, probably with an enhanced mandate. A precarious peace would be a small step in stabilising the military relations between Israel and Lebanon, but do little to bring an end to the Gaza bloodbath.