Israel and Hezbollah started their 60-day ceasefire on November 26, marking a rare moment of relief in the broader, multi-front conflict that has embroiled the Middle East for over a year, and often threatening a wider war. The ceasefire agreement, facilitated by international actors including the US and France, mandates a gradual Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and requires Hezbollah to pull back north of the Litani River. As part of the deal, the Lebanese army is expected to take control of its territory, replacing Hezbollah fighters.
US President Joe Biden said the ceasefire could serve as a model to bring about a broader truce, particularly with Hamas in Gaza. Hamas indicated on November 27 that it was prepared for a truce, formally informing mediators in Egypt, Qatar and Turkey. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears more focused on continuing the military campaign against Hamas, suggesting a stark contrast in priorities between the various stakeholders.
Interestingly, the ceasefire in Lebanon was driven largely by Hezbollah's diminished military capabilities, caused by months of targeted assassinations, battlefield losses and sustained airstrikes by Israel. The group, which had long insisted that a ceasefire with Israel could only be achieved if a similar agreement was reached in Gaza, shifted its position as it found itself weakened considerably. Hezbollah's patrons in Iran, too, needed a pause to manage their own strategic interests, because of the fraught strategic and political situation the country finds itself in.
Netanyahu’s decision to agree to the ceasefire in Lebanon was also influenced by strategic and political factors. Despite its diminished capabilities, Hezbollah’s ability to launch missiles at Israel still remains a concern. Some reports say the group has about 1.2 lakh rockets and missiles in its arsenal. A couple of days ago, it forced hundreds of thousands of Israelis to take shelter as it rained rockets across major cities, including Tel Aviv. De-escalating tensions on the northern front helps avoid overextending the Israel Defence Forces, which have been strained by more than a year of conflict. Unlike in Gaza, where Israel could continue its operations with a standing army, the northern front in Lebanon requires calling up reservists, which has become increasingly difficult to sustain. The decision to separate the Lebanese and Gaza fronts allows Israel to focus its efforts on Gaza. Furthermore, the ceasefire does not risk significant political fallout within Israel, as Netanyahu faces less pressure from his right-wing coalition to pursue military objectives in Lebanon.
In contrast, the situation in Gaza presents a more complicated scenario. While the war against Hamas has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians, Hamas continues to hold about 100 Israeli hostages, giving it significant leverage in negotiations. Netanyahu's government also faces intense pressure from its far-right coalition members, particularly ministers like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, who want to pursue an annexationist policy in Gaza. They have expressed a desire to re-establish Jewish settlements in Gaza and even encourage Palestinian emigration from the region, which would clash with any potential ceasefire or diplomatic solution.
The complexity of the Gaza conflict has been further compounded by the leadership vacuum within Hamas following the assassination of key figures, including its leader Yahya Sinwar. Notwithstanding the public pronouncements, the group’s surviving leadership, now a five-person council, has shown little inclination to negotiate, especially under the pressure of a significant Israeli military push. Hamas, despite its severe losses, is unlikely to relinquish control of Gaza or release hostages without significant concessions. The group's leadership remains hardline, and the survival of Hamas in Gaza remains a central issue for the group's strategic calculations.
Netanyahu’s political survival is also tied to the continuation of the war. He faces multiple corruption charges, and maintaining the status of a wartime leader has allowed him to delay legal proceedings. His legal team has even requested a postponement of his court appearance, citing the ongoing war. This reliance on the conflict to delay or avoid prosecution means that Netanyahu is politically incentivised to keep the war going, particularly in Gaza. Therefore, in Gaza, Israel’s strategy remains straightforward: to continue the military campaign until Hamas is destroyed.
Internationally, Netanyahu’s actions are also influenced by pressure from key allies. Biden, while supportive of Israel, is pressing for a broader ceasefire. While Washington is careful not to push Israel too hard, Netanyahu is aware of the risk of alienating his most powerful ally. The looming prospect of Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January adds another layer of complexity, as Trump had signalled that he wants the fighting to end before he takes charge. This external pressure, combined with Netanyahu’s need to appease his coalition, has created a dilemma for the Israeli prime minister.
The ceasefire in Lebanon reflects a pragmatic move by Netanyahu to ease pressure on the Israeli military, stabilise the northern front, keep his coalition happy and ensure his political survival. However, it does not offer a model for peace in Gaza because of strategic, historic and political reasons. The battle gainst Hamas remains a far more intractable issue, with significant domestic and international pressure on Netanyahu to either pursue a military victory without further delay or seek a diplomatic resolution.
