Given the current stances of Israel and Hezbollah, a ceasefire seems unlikely. A softening of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s terms, perhaps under pressure from the Israeli military and the U.S., could make a ceasefire possible. However, Israel’s history shows a pattern of agreeing to terms only to later withdraw or adjust to new on-ground realities.
Ahead of the November 5 elections, the U.S., eager for a Middle East achievement, has turned to Lebanon after unsuccessful attempts for a Gaza ceasefire and prisoner exchange. Senior adviser to President Biden, Amos Hochstein, is in discussions with Israeli officials today after presenting a ceasefire proposal to Lebanese representatives yesterday.
The U.S. previously proposed a temporary Gaza ceasefire and a partial prisoner exchange, but talks broke down after two days of negotiations in Doha. Hamas maintains its demand for a permanent ceasefire and an end to occupation in exchange for the release of hostages.
With prospects for a pre-election success in Gaza dwindling, the Biden administration shifted focus to Lebanon. Dropping the precondition that “a Gaza ceasefire is necessary for Lebanon’s peace,” the U.S. dispatched Hochstein to negotiate, hoping a Lebanon agreement might indirectly pressure Hamas toward a Gaza ceasefire.
Meanwhile, the Israeli army leaked reports ahead of Hochstein’s meetings suggesting that Israel’s objectives in Lebanon are largely met. Following these leaks, Netanyahu convened a high-level security meeting with officials, including Defense Minister Gallant, Chief of Staff Halevi, Mossad Director Barnea, and Shin Bet Chief Bar.
Israel’s conditions
At the meeting, Gallant reportedly stated that 80% of Hezbollah’s rocket and missile capacity had been neutralized. Halevi advocated for a negotiated end to the conflict, indicating that an agreement with Lebanon is possible outside the ongoing Gaza situation.
Israeli media revealed the terms developed by Dermer’s team with input from security and foreign affairs officials:
-Hezbollah must withdraw north of the Litani River, per an extension of UN Resolution 1701.
-The Lebanese army would be heavily stationed on the border.
-International monitoring mechanisms would oversee compliance.
-The Israeli army would retain rights for future operations in Lebanon should “elimination of threats” be necessary.
-Hezbollah’s future rearmament would be restricted.
-A 60-day ceasefire would be established as part of the agreement.
The proposal to Lebanon
Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri told Sharq al-Awsat that he and Hochstein agreed to halt Israeli attacks. Berri emphasized Lebanon’s commitment to the original UN Resolution 1701 text, adding that Lebanon is ready to implement the agreement as soon as Netanyahu agrees.
Draft of Hochstein’s proposal
Israeli media leaked a draft of Hochstein’s proposed agreement just hours before he arrived in Israel. According to this draft, Israeli forces would be permitted to act in “self-defense against imminent threats” and conduct surveillance over Lebanon. The draft was confirmed by U.S. officials, though National Security Council spokesman Sean Savett noted that it does not represent the current state of negotiations.
Reports suggest Netanyahu might be open to these ceasefire conditions, though reactions within his coalition remain uncertain.
Hochstein has since conveyed the U.S. proposal to Lebanese officials, with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati hinting that a ceasefire could soon be reached. Still, Lebanese sources caution that Israel’s self-defense clauses in the draft could render it unacceptable due to perceived infringements on Lebanese sovereignty.
The United States is expected to oversee the agreement’s implementation, with Lebanon deploying its armed forces in the south alongside UN peacekeepers. The draft stipulates that, within the initial 60 days, Lebanon must dismantle non-state armed groups in the south, while Israel would begin withdrawing troops within a week of the agreement.
Hezbollah’s stance
According to a report in Al-Akbar, Hezbollah rejects any amendments to Resolution 1701 and opposes an increase in international or Lebanese forces in the south. Hezbollah does not expect the U.S. position to shift, believing instead that Israel intends to prolong the conflict.
Hezbollah remains committed to resisting negotiations that might weaken its position, seeing armed resistance as an essential safeguard for Lebanon.
Israel’s ‘ceasefire’ strategy
In essence, there appears little difference between the leaked U.S. draft and Israel’s ceasefire conditions. Hezbollah will likely oppose Israel’s operational rights in southern Lebanon, as well as the proposed aerial surveillance.
Even if an agreement is reached, Israel’s history suggests that implementation may fall short. In September, a U.S.-brokered ceasefire was disrupted when Israel targeted Hezbollah leadership, and similar patterns have been observed in Gaza.
The timing suggests that Netanyahu may be leveraging ceasefire talks to ease U.S. and domestic pressures before the November elections. However, any resulting agreement may prove more symbolic than substantial.
