On November 27, Israel and Lebanon reached a ceasefire agreement, which officially came into effect at 10:00 a.m. local time. This agreement, brokered by the United States and France, is a significant achievement for peace and has been widely welcomed by global public opinion. Members of the “Axis of Resistance”, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran, have also endorsed it. As of the time of writing, only two members of the “Axis of Resistance”, Syria and the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, have not yet expressed their stance.
The Lebanon-Israel ceasefire brings a glimmer of peace to the “Sixth Middle East War,” which has lasted over a year and three months. At least, the northern front of this war—known as the “Third Lebanon War”—has entered a more stable phase of temporary truce. Thousands of civilians who fled southern Lebanon have begun returning to their homes, and civilians in northern Israel, who sought refuge from the conflict, are also gradually returning.
However, it may be overly optimistic to assume that this ceasefire will lead to a series of ceasefires across Israel’s “seven-front war” or that Hezbollah’s withdrawal signals the fall of the first “domino” in the “Axis of Resistance.” On the contrary, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East remains an elusive goal, possibly for decades.
Under the terms of the agreement, Israel is to gradually withdraw from Lebanese territory within 60 days of the ceasefire, and Hezbollah is prohibited from returning south of the Litani River, a region 30 kilometers from the border. Southern Lebanon will be managed by Lebanese government forces, in cooperation with United Nations peacekeeping forces, implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701 from 2006.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the ceasefire allows Israel to focus on countering Iran, giving its long-deployed soldiers a chance to rest and isolating Hamas by disconnecting the Lebanon and Palestinian fronts. He emphasized that an understanding has been reached with the U.S.: if Hezbollah violates the ceasefire agreement, Israeli forces will immediately resume military operations. Meanwhile, Hezbollah declared that it had inflicted severe damage on Israel and emerged victorious.
The timing of the ceasefire is opportune, influenced by multiple factors and the longstanding cyclical nature of intermittent Lebanon-Israel conflicts. Key factors include the protracted duration and widespread impact of the “Sixth Middle East War,” which has caused unprecedented harm to civilians, particularly Palestinians, and provoked intense global public pressure. All parties in the conflict have suffered losses, with no clear winners. Israel faces unprecedented internal and external challenges, while Lebanon’s infrastructure and Hezbollah’s operational capabilities have been significantly weakened.
For the U.S., the Democratic administration’s staunch support for Israel, coupled with pressure from the incoming Republican government to exact greater costs from the “Axis of Resistance,” also played a role. Iran, the leader of the “Resistance Axis,” has shown little interest in escalating the conflict further, particularly after a year of engagements with Israel, including two direct confrontations.
The Lebanon-Israel ceasefire signifies the end of Israel’s “northern campaign” and a shift of focus back to the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel aims to quell the “guerrilla warfare among ruins” in these areas, secure the release of detained soldiers and civilians, and plan future security measures and governance to prevent Hamas from regaining strength. Simultaneously, Israel must address harassment from the Houthis and the Popular Mobilization Forces, as well as its ongoing “shadow war” or proxy conflict with Iran, which occasionally escalates into direct military confrontations. Moreover, Israel faces domestic political instability and unprecedented diplomatic crises, including the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant.
The “Axis of Resistance” initially formed a unified anti-Israel front, with the premise of supporting Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation and conditioning their own ceasefires on a truce in Gaza. However, Hezbollah has been forced to cease hostilities unilaterally, as its leadership has been decimated, its infrastructure in southern Lebanon destroyed, and its military resources depleted. Most critically, Israel has compelled Hezbollah to accept the ceasefire by punishing the entire Lebanese state and population, echoing the script of the “Second Lebanon War” in 2006.
Although the “Second Lebanon War” granted Israel 17 years of relative peace on its northern border, it is doubtful that this ceasefire will yield similar results. The unresolved sovereignty dispute over the 22-square-kilometer Shebaa Farms remains a potential flashpoint for future conflicts.
Israel’s unilateral declaration of permanent sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2016, endorsed by the Trump administration, exemplifies its disregard for international law and norms. However, history suggests that Israel’s unilateral annexation of the Golan Heights may bring more challenges than benefits, as it continues to face resistance from Hezbollah and other actors.
Similarly, Israel’s ambition for a “Greater Israel” and rejection of the two-state solution guarantees continued unrest in Gaza and the West Bank, with millions of Palestinians resisting occupation. This also invites intensified opposition from nationalist and Shia Islamist movements, as well as widespread international condemnation.
While the Lebanon-Israel ceasefire represents a temporary pause in hostilities, it is far from a guarantee of lasting peace. Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the conflict does not signify the collapse of the “Axis of Resistance.” The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has evolved beyond its traditional scope, becoming entangled with broader geopolitical dynamics. As Israel persists in its mission to eliminate Hamas, it risks being ensnared in a quagmire of occupation and resistance, power and counter-power.
As a small country with limited resources, Israel has relied on U.S. support to dominate the Middle East during the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. However, if U.S. influence wanes, Israel’s future remains uncertain.
Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.
