The ceasefire between Hizbollah and Israel, while halting active conflict, has led to ongoing domestic tensions in Lebanon. Displacement and discussions around Hizbollah’s disarmament are at the forefront of political discourse. Lebanon’s new leadership must navigate these challenges while fostering military and governmental integrity amid potential crises. The role of external actors remains vital in supporting a stable Lebanese state post-conflict.
As of November 2024, a ceasefire concluded fourteen months of conflict between Hizbollah and Israel, initiated by Hizbollah’s actions on October 8, one day following Hamas’s attacks from Gaza. Despite the ceasefire, tensions persist within Lebanon, bolstered by Hizbollah’s losses and the revival of discussions about disarming the Shiite group, a key condition for the ceasefire. Approximately one million Lebanese who were displaced have returned home, yet potential conflicts may arise should the fragile ceasefire break down.
The ceasefire stipulated the Lebanese army’s responsibility to ensure Hizbollah renounced its military capabilities, while Israel was to withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon by late January. Though the ceasefire has been maintained, it remains precarious, with both sides accusing each other of violations. The delayed Israeli withdrawal and subsequent incidents of violence against Lebanese returnees have heightened tensions and exacerbated challenges stemming from war-induced displacements.
The internal discourse following the war revolves around Hizbollah’s military role in the political landscape of post-war Lebanon. Two opposing factions have emerged: one that hails Hizbollah’s perceived victory over Israel and another that criticizes the group for leading Lebanon into conflict. Proponents of redistributing power are advocating for disarmament and adherence to the ceasefire accord, aiming to enhance the state’s authority over armed groups.
Lebanon’s new government, led by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, faces the pressing task of managing these heightened political tensions while implementing necessary reforms. Aoun has vowed to establish the state’s authority over weaponry but must navigate Hizbollah’s entrenched position within the political system. Despite initial excitement surrounding his agenda, it is unclear whether Hizbollah and its allies will support these reforms.
Although Hizbollah’s military strength appears diminished post-war, it continues to hold significant political influence. The tensions following the war may allow major political shifts if leveraged correctly. Sovereignists believe Hizbollah could be weakened by the current situation; however, any attempts at forced disarmament could provoke destabilizing responses, such as street protests or violence among Shiite communities.
As Lebanon’s political leadership seeks to consolidate the ceasefire, it is imperative to approach Hizbollah’s future with diplomacy rather than aggression. The U.S. must provide continued support for the Lebanese army and foster dialogue among political camps, stressing that disarmament does not equate to Hizbollah’s annihilation. Furthermore, international actors should focus on reinforcing state institutions and aiding humanitarian relief while being cautious not to strengthen Hizbollah’s domestic support through exclusionary tactics.
The ongoing tensions in Lebanon following the recent ceasefire with Israel highlight the complex challenges facing the nation. The disarmament of Hizbollah remains a contentious issue, necessitating careful negotiation rather than confrontation. A successful resolution requires collaborative efforts from Lebanon’s leaders and international support to ensure stability and reconstruction. The post-war context may indeed open avenues for crucial political dialogue and the potential recalibration of power dynamics among Lebanon’s various factions.
Original Source: reliefweb.int
