The Israeli cabinet is expected to meet today to approve a ceasefire and prisoner swap agreement in Gaza. Palestinian sources indicate that the agreement could be signed on or before Friday, 17 January.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is working to ensure the government remains stable, as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich opposes the deal, according to official Israeli state television KAN.

“If things move quickly, it is likely that the cabinet will meet this afternoon, followed by a government meeting where the deal will be approved,” Israeli officials told KAN.

Israeli Channel 12 television, citing Israeli sources, reported that the details of the prisoner release deal have been agreed upon, and a final response from Hamas is awaited. The news also highlighted that most government members support the agreement.

Reports noted that 18 ministers from the Likud party, led by Netanyahu, six from the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Shas Party, two from the United Torah Judaism party led by Moshe Gafni, and two from the National Right party support the agreement.

On the other hand, three ministers from the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, led by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, and three ministers from the Religious Zionism party, led by far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, oppose the agreement.

KAN reported that Netanyahu met with Smotrich the previous day in an attempt to persuade him to support the deal.

The Lebanese parliament elected Chief of Staff Joseph Aoun as president yesterday, marking a significant step in overcoming more than two years of political crisis. This election follows weeks after a fragile ceasefire agreement ended 14 months of conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, occurring at a time when Lebanese leaders are seeking international assistance for reconstruction. Joseph Aoun was the preferred candidate of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, two countries whose support Lebanon will rely on during the reconstruction process.

Hezbollah had initially supported Suleiman Frangieh, the leader of the Marada Movement and an ally of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, Frangieh withdrew from the race on Wednesday and announced his support for Aoun, clearing the way for the latter’s election.

Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Middle East Institute, told the Associated Press that international pressure, combined with Hezbollah’s weakening due to its war with Israel and the diminished influence of its Syrian ally Assad, were key factors leading to yesterday’s outcome.

In the first round of voting, Hezbollah and the Amal Movement cast blank ballots, signaling that “he cannot be elected president without our approval.” Aoun was subsequently elected in the second round. Mohamed Raad, the head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, stated, “We postponed the vote to send a message that we are the guardians of Lebanon’s sovereignty and national reconciliation.”

One of Hezbollah and Amal Movement’s key demands during the election process was maintaining control over the finance ministry. An agreement addressing this demand was reportedly reached, particularly in negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Despite international pressure and its diminished military and political strength, Hezbollah demonstrated its decisive influence in the presidential election.

In his victory speech, Aoun proclaimed, “Today begins a new era in Lebanon’s history.” He committed to implementing the ceasefire agreement with Israel, which requires the withdrawal of both Hezbollah and Israeli forces from southern Lebanon. Aoun also pledged to work towards a national security strategy that aims to “dismantle the Israeli occupation and repel its aggression.” He emphasized the need for the Lebanese state to hold a monopoly on the right to bear arms, an apparent reference to Hezbollah’s weapons.

Sami Atallah, founding director of the Beirut-based think tank The Policy Initiative, told the Financial Times: “I don’t think [Hezbollah] could afford to torpedo the process, especially after the war and its consequences for reconstruction and challenges facing the Shia community. They felt compelled to compromise and accept a candidate.”

Joseph Aoun, 60, was educated in the U.S. and has established strong ties with Washington, which funds and trains the Lebanese army. This has earned him the moniker “America’s man.” However, some MPs criticized foreign influence in Lebanon’s internal affairs, with some even combining his name on ballots with those of the U.S. and Saudi ambassadors: “Joseph Amos bin Farhan.”

While Aoun’s election addresses the prolonged presidential vacuum, the next challenge lies in appointing a prime minister and forming a cabinet. The president’s powers are limited in Lebanon, but filling this role was essential before government formation could proceed.

The incoming government faces the daunting task of enforcing the ceasefire agreement, managing reconstruction after the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, and addressing Lebanon’s severe economic crisis. Now in its sixth year, the crisis has devastated the national currency, wiped out savings, and reduced state-owned electricity supply to a few hours daily. In 2022, Lebanese leaders secured a preliminary bailout agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but progress on the reforms required to finalize the deal has been limited.

Lebanon, which has been in a presidential vacuum since October 30, 2022, finally got its fourteenth president.

It is difficult for a poor, fragmented and weak country like Lebanon, where the presidency is the most important part of its government, to remain without an administrator for more than two years.

Joseph Aoun, the country’s army chief, was finally elected by Lebanon’s parliament as president. Aoun is being backed by several key political parties inside the country, as well as US, France, and Saudi Arabia in international affairs.

Aoun was sworn in as the president after winning 99 votes from the 128-member parliament and will remain in this position for six years.

While the parliament held thirteen special sessions over the past two years, it failed to elect a president. Aoun is the fourth military figure from the Maronite Christians who sits on the Lebanese presidential seat. Being a military man made him stay out of political circles and enter the field as a “cross-party candidate” and win the votes of many political currents.

Here are three points over selection of Aoun:

Frist:

Hezbollah fell short of its previous position, which if this does not indicate its weakness, it shows its flexibility. Of course, according to his critics, this flexibility is due to the weakness that has emerged after the attacks of Israel.

Hezbollah and the Amal Movement are two Shiite parties that have 27 seats in the parliament. Salmian Faranjieh, the leader of al-Murda movement, was the candidate of Amal and Hezbollah, who withdrew from the competition. While he entered the campaign in June 2023, he did not get votes and did not give his opponent a chance to win. One reason for delaying the election of the president was the difference between the candidates of Hezbollah and Amal and the candidates of other groups.

As a Maronite Christian, Franjieh had a favorable view of Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and the so-called “axis of resistance” whose victory was unacceptable to the United States of America, France and Saudi Arabia. These five countries are mentioned because the foreign factor acts more strongly than the domestic factor in directing the developments in Lebanon.

Now this time, Farnjieh refrained from entering the elections and supported Aoun – which made the latter win. It is clear that if the two Shiite currents had not shown flexibility, it is very likely that Aoun would not have won either.

For example, he got 71 votes in the first round and failed to get two-thirds of the votes (86 votes), Because the Shiite representatives were content with refusing to vote – but in the second round, after getting their consent, he managed to get 99 votes, while he needed 65 votes.

But since he was the head of the army, he could not become the president based on the provisions of the constitution, and he still needed two-thirds of the votes. Of course, it happened in 2008 as well, when Michel Suleiman, the commander of the army at the time, was a candidate for the presidency, the speaker of the parliament announced that if he won more than two-thirds of the votes in the second round, he would waive the amendment of the constitution, which happened.

Now it seems that this has become a tradition. Amal and Hezbollah apparently fell short because their candidate had no chance of winning and the latter is under more internal and external pressure than ever before. Maybe they did so in exchange for receiving promises or because they had no choice.

Second:

Although Aoun won the support of two Shia currents in the second round, after his victory, he made some points in his speech that were not pleasing to Hezbollah – it is in the situation that this group has been weakened and trying to revive it is time-consuming and costly.

The new president of Lebanon said “I will use my role as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces to confirm the government’s right to carry weapons. We should not rely on the outside to bully each other.”

If you pay a little attention, you can understand that Aoun is referring to Hezbollah, because when it comes to the disarmament of militias and the monopoly of weapons in the hands of the government, this group can be the target. It is also Hezbollah that does not respect the rulers of Beirut and other groups and bullies Aoun. Because the arsenal has weapons that the Lebanese army does not have. When Aoun talks about external forces, he apparently means Iran because it supports Hezbollah.

More importantly, Aoun played a role in the ceasefire talks between Hezbollah and Israel. The Lebanese army is also responsible for implementing the provisions of the ceasefire agreement. Being a military man, he understands well the importance of arms monopoly in the hands of the government, and the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council are also available in the field.

Therefore, it is not unlikely that he will make efforts to disarm Hezbollah, evacuate southern Lebanon from the presence of this group’s militias, strengthen the army, etc.; so as to arouse the dissatisfaction of the supporters of this group. If he did not do so in the past, it was because he was not in a decision-making position and perhaps, he did not want to involve the army in doing something that he could not handle. Now what is helping him is the support of America, the different UN resolutions, the absence of Bashar Assad and the weakness of Hezbollah.

Third:

Saudi Arabia’s greed for role-playing is also interesting. Aoun is on the receiving end of Riyadh’s support. It is even said that he made his financial aid to Lebanon conditional on his victory. America and France also wanted Aoun’s victory, which would pave the way for Riyadh to act in Lebanon.

While the Saudi rivals (Iran and Qatar) were looking for other options: Franjieh and Elias Albusiri, as mentioned in (first analysis), Farnjieh was the candidate of the Shiites, which is also favorable in Tehran’s opinion, but he withdrew. But al-Basiri, who is supported by Qatar, went against Aoun and did not get a vote.

More importantly, Yazid bin Farhan, adviser to the Saudi Foreign Minister, has been in Lebanon for a few days now, and his role was prominent in Aoun’s victory. Even one of the members of the Lebanese Parliament wrote the name of Ben Farhan on the ballot as “Joseph Amos Ben Farhan” and showed it to others. All this indicates the presence of Riyadh in the context of developments in Lebanon, something that can be interpreted as unfavorable space for Tehran and Doha.

All in all, the political deadlock in Lebanon was broken and now there is a promise of political opening. Now it is expected that Beirut will be removed from the conflict of interests of major regional and global powers and sectarian conflicts in order to find a way to get rid of the current chaos.