The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, which is expected to end 14 months of fighting, began this morning. It is not clear when the Israeli army will withdraw from the villages it has occupied, but those who were forced to leave their homes due to the attacks in southern Lebanon are returning to their homes.
Assoc. Prof. Yasin Atlıoğlu answered Harici’s questions about what the ceasefire means for Israel and Hezbollah, whether it will be successful and how it will affect Gaza.
Atlıoğlu summarised the process leading up to the ceasefire announcement as follows: “In September, rumours and initiatives about a ceasefire started for the first time. This continued in October. But nothing was finalised until the American elections. In the meantime, the conflict intensified. In particular, the air strikes organised by Israel caused great destruction in the cities, especially in Beirut. The situation was similar in southern Lebanon. However, Israel did not make much progress in its ground operation. Under these circumstances, many people were uncertain whether there would be a ceasefire.”
Atlıoğlu explained that a strange situation had indeed arisen with the announcement of the ceasefire in the evening, saying: “As far as we understand, a ceasefire has been reached between Israel and the Lebanese government under the mediation of America and France. It is still unclear where Hezbollah stands in this process. Atlıoğlu recalled that there has been propaganda that Hezbollah has accepted the ceasefire, but Hezbollah has not yet made a clear statement: ‘In fact, an MP said last night that there are some differences between the text that came before us and this latest text, so it is still unclear whether Hezbollah will fulfil the conditions of the ceasefire.
Atlıoğlu said that the parties had adapted to the ceasefire, which came into force in the morning despite the uncertainty, and said: “With the rapid start of the return of the Lebanese to the south, propaganda is being made that this is not a defeat. On the other hand, the Israeli side is declaring this agreement as a great victory’.
Atlıoğlu recalled that the text of the ceasefire has not yet been published and pointed out that according to Biden’s statement and media reports, there are some points in the agreement that Hezbollah has always objected to: “Especially the issue that Biden said last night that Israel can organise counter-attacks in the framework of the right of self-defence in case of an attack. Moreover, this issue of withdrawal is very complicated. There is the deployment of the Lebanese army in the region, and as of this evening some units of the Lebanese army have come out of hibernation and have been mobilised. But, of course, Israel says that I will not leave the narrow strip of the border that I occupy until Hezbollah withdraws north of the Litani River. So it is unclear when and how the withdrawal will take place.”
“There is talk of an American-led mechanism to monitor the ceasefire. How will this be set up? How will there be communication? More importantly, how will the Lebanese army be deployed? Is the ceasefire sustainable? Can the Lebanese army establish authority in the region in such a fragile environment? These are all question marks. The possibility of a resumption of the conflict is also quite high.”
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Atlıoğlu said the following about whether the ceasefire was a victory or a defeat for Hezbollah: “The war has led to some changes in Hezbollah’s stance since last year. The organisation has been seriously weakened by the losses it has suffered in terms of military capacity and leadership. We do not know the extent of this. But in September, in his last speech before he was killed, Hassan Nasrallah said something he had repeated many times before: The only condition for the return of Israeli settlers to the north is a ceasefire in Gaza. Now, with this ceasefire, it seems that Hezbollah has abandoned this objective.”
“This could cause some problems within Hezbollah. Because the reason why Hezbollah went to war was to support Gaza. So the fact that Hezbollah has abandoned that could create problems for the organisation. There is a situation where the organisation cannot stand behind the words of Hassan Nasrallah.”
“One of the reasons, of course, is that the domestic political situation is different from a year ago. Hezbollah’s rivals can now make their voices heard. So there could be some serious battles in domestic politics.”
Atlıoğlu also commented on whether the ceasefire could mean a victory for Israel, given the Israeli army’s unwillingness to fight in Lebanon and the losses it has suffered:
“The Israeli side had air superiority, but Hezbollah showed good resistance in the land attack. The Israeli army could not advance. In terms of the sustainability of the war, some of the weaknesses of the Israeli land army were exposed. Israel, which occupied the whole of southern Lebanon in 2-3 days in the 1970s, could barely capture a few places on the border this time. At the same time, there is a lack of population and human resources in Israel. Add to this the issue of drafting ultra-Orthodox Jews into the army and the domestic political turmoil that this could cause, and victory seems out of the question. After all, Israel had originally planned to remove the settlers from the north militarily, but in the end the deal had to be done.”
“All this is true, but if we look at it from a broader perspective, if someone had said 2-3 years ago that Israel would kill the entire leadership of Hezbollah, including Nasrallah, and cause such serious destruction in Lebanon, no one would have believed it. So Hezbollah has certainly suffered serious damage. But is this compatible with Israel’s extreme goals or not? We will have to wait and see.”
“Netanyahu has already declared victory as the man behind this. He even went a little further. He said that after the Lebanon chapter is closed, Iran is their target. He warned Assad. At the moment, Israel seems to be in an advantageous position. There is criticism from within, but the general opinion is that Hezbollah has been seriously damaged.”
Atlıoğlu responded to our question about the impact of a Trump presidency on Gaza, if the ceasefire succeeds and the Lebanese front is closed to Israel, as follows:
“The fact that Trump is a leader who is more sympathetic to Israel creates a picture in which Israel can do something at a higher level in Gaza. However, Trump, who is an unpredictable leader, may have other plans. When he comes to power, he will either try to find a middle ground or further pave the way for Netanyahu, who already wanted Trump to be elected president. So if he paves the way, the situation in Gaza will get worse. Perhaps Gaza will be completely dehumanised. At the same time, a similar situation could arise in the West Bank. So there is a possibility that Trump will allow this, at least Netanyahu thinks so.”
