Ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel: A Last attempt of Biden to undo its Failure before Departure
Ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel
On November 27, 2024, the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah was finalized, bringing an end to over a year of growing hostilities. The accord, which was mostly mediated by the United States with support from France and other international players, marks a strategic pause to address both pressing security issues and more general geopolitical considerations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was swayed by a number of reasons, including pressure from other countries, the possibility of diplomatic repercussions, and worries about the International Criminal Court (ICC), but U.S. President Joe Biden was instrumental in convincing Netanyahu to accept the terms.
Regarding what it claims may be their legal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Israel’s war on Gaza, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on November 21. Following this, European leaders made a series of formal declarations declaring that they would enforce the ruling and fulfil their duties to detain the Israeli leader if he entered their countries. One prominent exception is Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orban has invited Netanyahu to visit and pledged not to arrest him.
The Ceasefire’s Context
After Hamas launched a massive strike on southern Israel in October 2023, killing over 1,400 Israelis, the conflict broke out. In late September 2024, Hezbollah, a close Hamas supporter, intensified rocket strikes on northern Israel, which prompted Israeli counterattacks and an invasion of southern Lebanon.
Important Conflict Statistics
approximately 15,000 Lebanese were injured, and approximately 3,500 were murdered. There were 73 military deaths and 45 civilian deaths on the Israeli side of the fight. As per the roughly idea about displacement, its roughly 96,000 people had to leave their homes in northern Israel. With more than 1.4 million people displaced, Lebanon experienced one of the worst humanitarian disasters in recent memory.
Infrastructure Damage: While northern Israeli communities were severely damaged by rocket attacks, southern Lebanon sustained widespread devastation, including the loss of Hezbollah’s missile capabilities.
यह भी पढ़ें: Listunite सेवा प्रदाताओं के लिए मंच
The Ceasefire Agreement’s Provisions
Several important steps are included in the ceasefire:
- A 60-day initial phase of mutual suspension of hostilities.
- The Lebanese Army was sent to southern Lebanon in order to stop Hezbollah from keeping a military base there.
- Oversight by a global committee comprising the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
- Deconstruction of illegal weapons factories in Lebanon.
- Hezbollah’s evacuation north of the Litani River, a clause that has historically been mainly disregarded, is one of the 2006 ceasefire parameters that was reaffirmed in the deal.
Biden’s Contribution to the Ceasefire
The government of President Biden applied a great deal of diplomatic pressure to get both parties to the bargaining table. The ceasefire was presented by U.S. officials as both a humanitarian imperative and a calculated step to stop additional regional instability. In the weeks before the deal, Biden personally contacted Netanyahu many times to emphasize its significance.
Reasons for American Pressure
Stabilizing the Region: With the protracted conflict in Gaza still unresolved, the United States aimed to defuse tensions in the larger Middle East. Israel was able to concentrate its resources on Hamas because a ceasefire with Hezbollah eliminated a crucial second front from its combat map.
Humanitarian Concerns: The large number of casualties and displacement in Lebanon caused serious concern on a global scale. The United States wanted to keep Lebanon’s already precarious government and economy from collapsing completely and causing more pain to civilians. The Biden administration sought to undermine Iranian dominance in the region, according to geopolitical calculations. A ceasefire isolated Iran’s supporters and undermined Hezbollah’s capacity to act as a stand-in for Tehran.
ICC Fears and Netanyahu’s Reluctance
A number of reasons contributed to Netanyahu’s initial reluctance to accept the truce, including his wish to keep military pressure on Hezbollah and worries about political blowback from hardliners in his administration. But Biden’s influence was crucial in changing Netanyahu’s position.
The ICC’s Function
The possibility of international legal repercussions was one important consideration. Israel’s military operations in Gaza and Lebanon have drawn increasing criticism of Netanyahu, including claims of war crimes. The ICC has jurisdiction over operations in Palestinian areas and has been keeping a close eye on the issue even though Israel is not a party to the court. In the past, the ICC has looked into claims of civilian casualties and excessive use of force. Concerns over possible ICC probes are raised by reports that Israeli strikes in Gaza and Lebanon caused significant civilian casualties. After previously implying that Netanyahu would be subject to international inspection, including the potential of imprisonment for alleged war crimes, France, a crucial mediator in the ceasefire negotiations, apparently softened its position on the Israeli leader. By accepting the truce, Netanyahu was able to show that he was compliant with international standards, which may lessen the possibility that the ICC would get involved.
Aspects of Strategy and Tactics for Ceasefire
Military Resupply: The deal gave the Israeli military the time it needed to reassemble its units and replenish its ammunition. Israel’s need for respite is exacerbated by reports of delays in U.S. arms delivery.
Isolating Hamas: Israel was able to concentrate on Hamas after Hezbollah was neutralised, which decreased the possibility of coordinated multi-front attacks.
Domestic and International Pressure: In order to facilitate a return to normalcy, the Israeli public, especially those who were displaced in the north, generally backed a ceasefire. International allies, including as the United States and European countries, pressed for a deal to stop additional humanitarian fallout.
Broader Consequences of the Ceasefire
Despite being a vital step in de-escalating conflict, the ceasefire is not without its difficulties. Hezbollah’s ongoing militarisation south of the Litani River was one of the transgressions that jeopardised previous accords, including the truce in 2006. The Lebanese government’s commitment and ongoing international supervision are necessary for the current agreement to be enforced effectively. Additionally, tensions in Gaza and the larger Israel-Palestine conflict remain unsolved despite the ceasefire. A comprehensive peace will necessitate resolving more profound political and territorial disputes, even though the United States hopes the truce in Lebanon serves as an example for conflict settlement.
In conclusion
The ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel is a brief but significant break in one of the worst wars in the area. The intricate interaction of humanitarian, geopolitical, and legal factors is highlighted by President Biden’s role in applying pressure to Netanyahu. The truce strikes a balance between strategic military requirements and the possibility of reducing international scrutiny, particularly worries about the ICC, according to Netanyahu. The agreement’s future success will depend on strict enforcement and more extensive diplomatic initiatives to deal with the underlying causes of Middle Eastern instability.
Writer: Dr. Syed Mohammad Raghib
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Hamaratimes.com. The author is solely responsible for the content of this article.
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for latest updates.
