Can Lebanon’s Ceasefire Lead to a Gaza Let up?

CrossFireArabia
Analyses
November 28, 2024

The cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon is raising questions about whether a similar truce could bring an end to the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.

Statements from around the world have given rise to cautious hope, such as the US saying it aims to use the Lebanon truce “as a catalyst for a potential Gaza cease-fire,” but prospects of something actually materializing remain uncertain.

Palestinian academic Sami Al-Arian believes Israel does not want a cease-fire in Gaza, at least “for the time being.”

“Knowing that (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu will be facing prison once the war ends in Gaza, it doesn’t seem like he’s interested in either getting the hostages out or ending this genocidal war,” he told Anadolu.

Israel, he said, has been trying to “annihilate the (Palestinian) resistance” but failed to do so, or “free their captives with military means.”

“They have been trying for 14 months and they have failed miserably,” he said, adding that going for a cease-fire in such conditions would not fit in with Israel’s goals.

Israeli expert Ori Goldberg also finds chances of a truce in Gaza difficult, pointing to Netanyahu’s own statement rejecting that specific possibility.

He said the Israeli premier, now a man wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, is unlikely to agree to cease-fire terms that risk his political standing.

“Various countries have already stated a renewed commitment to a hostage deal, but a cease-fire in Gaza will have to include a detailed schedule for Israeli withdrawal,” Goldberg said.

“I have trouble seeing Netanyahu agreeing to that in Gaza … If he agrees to it in Gaza, he will seem weaker.”

Another factor, he added, is how much “the Israeli public supports the presence of the Israeli military in Gaza, much more than it does in Lebanon.”

Why did Israel agree to Lebanon cease-fire?

Experts say Israel’s main reason for agreeing to the Lebanon truce was because it failed to achieve its military goals against Hezbollah.

“They wanted to push Hezbollah to the north of the Litani River but that failed. They wanted to disarm Hezbollah, and that failed,” said Al-Arian, adding that Israel opted for a cessation of hostilities because its forces were suffering.

“They wanted to impinge on Lebanese sovereignty and be able to fly over the airspace of Lebanon and control the border. That failed.”

Other goals of returning illegal Israeli settlers to Lebanese lands or creating a buffer zone also failed, he added.

Al-Arian emphasized that the current agreement is “not a cease-fire” but a truce for 60 days, reiterating that Israel’s only reason for agreeing was that “they were not able to bring Hezbollah to its knees and surrender.”

Ali Rizk, a Lebanese security analyst, presented a slightly different view, saying that both Israel and Hezbollah needed the truce.

“Hezbollah needed a cease-fire because it had suffered some heavy blows,” he told Anadolu.

Hezbollah’s supporters, particularly among the Shia community, were targeted by Israel, with many of them being displaced, and there was “immense human suffering with the onset of the winter season,” he added.

For Israel, Rizk believes they “initially had the momentum in their favor, especially after the assassination of Hezbollah’s former leader Syed Hassan Nasrallah, but gradually that momentum appeared to fade away.”

“They encountered some heavy resistance in the south. A lot of their soldiers lost their lives in the south. Hezbollah missile and rocket attacks continued,” he said.

In his own statement, while Netanyahu “didn’t say it, but he was implying that the Israeli military was suffering from some kind of a fatigue,” Rizk pointed out.

The US was another factor, he said, as it never wanted – since October 2023 – the “situation to erupt, to explode in Lebanon.”

“They (US) welcomed any steps and they took the opportunity when they found that these circumstances were appropriate and they sent Amos Hochstein,” said Rizk, referring to Biden’s special envoy.

“There were several factors – Hezbollah’s interests, Israeli interests and US interests – and I think they all converge in the same direction.”

Israeli analyst Goldberg also believes Netanyahu agreed to a truce because his forces were not accomplishing their goals in Lebanon.

“He wants to keep the Israeli military in Gaza. There’s no victory there, so he wanted something that would be a feather in his cap … He agreed to it in Lebanon because these are two sovereign states,” he said.

Will Lebanon cease-fire hold and what comes next?

On the durability of the Lebanon truce, Rizk struck an optimistic tone.

“If you look at what happened in 2006, Resolution 1701, that ended that conflict and it spoke about a cessation of hostilities,” he said, adding that the situation remained calm from 2006 till 2023.

“It’s quite possible that … we could have a long-term calm again … because it’s clear that neither the Israelis nor the Americans have an interest in the situation exploding.”

With Trump coming to power soon, having made clear his aversion to any war or military adventures, it would be fair to say “there is a good chance that this agreement is going to hold,” he added.

Goldberg, however, was more cautious in his outlook.

“I think the cease-fire will hold, even though there are provisions … that suggest that Israel can open fire and use violence whenever it likes. We will see how this happens,” he said.

“I think Netanyahu has an interest in the cease-fire holding because that gives him carte blanche in Gaza.”

Rizk, meanwhile, also believes that a formula could be reached to end the Gaza genocide and go ahead with a hostage deal.

“In July, according to reports, (US President-elect Donald) Trump told Netanyahu that he wants the situation done, and he wants the war to come to an end,” he said.

“If you look at Trump’s appointments and his mandate, it seems that he doesn’t want anything to do with a new conflict in the Middle East. He’s even given indications that he wants to deal with Iran, so that leads me to conclude that his foreign policy priorities are going to be elsewhere, which requires calm in this part of the world.”

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Analyses

Saudi Arabia Plays Host to Superpower Politics

CrossFireArabia
February 18, 2025

By Maksym Skrypchenko

Diplomatic efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine War are once again in the spotlight, as US and Russian officials meet in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. In a sharp contrast to the previous administration’s strictly defined red-line policy, representatives from the newly formed US President Donald Trump-aligned diplomatic team—Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff—are set to engage with their Russian counterparts in discussions that many fear may sideline Ukraine’s own interests.

The stakes in this conflict extend far beyond territorial disputes. For Ukraine, the war is an existential struggle against an enemy with centuries of imperial ambition. Every defensive maneuver is a stand for sovereignty and self-determination. Yet recent diplomatic moves suggest that Ukraine’s central role in negotiations may be diminished. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s absence from the Saudi meeting underscores the deep-seated concern in Kyiv that their security concerns might be marginalized in a process dominated by transactional interests.

https://twitter.com/canon75gaz81/status/1891836717696450562

Under the previous administration, Washington’s policy was driven by a clear set of red lines designed to deter any actions that could provoke a nuclear-armed adversary. That approach was predicated on a belief that excessive support for Ukraine might lead to a dangerous escalation. However, the new strategy, as signaled by Trump’s team, appears less encumbered by these constraints. Instead, the focus seems to have shifted toward a pragmatic resolution—a process that prioritizes ending the war at the expense of Ukraine’s moral imperatives underpinning their fight for survival. This shift represents not only a departure in tone but also in substance. While the previous policy imposed strict limitations to avoid provoking Moscow, the current approach appears more willing to concede Ukraine’s positions if it serves the broader goal of ending the fighting.

Trump’s affiliation with Saudis 

The decision to hold talks in Saudi Arabia is far from arbitrary. The Saudi Kingdom provides a neutral venue and a longstanding trusted mediator especially for figures like Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump, whose longstanding business and diplomatic ties in the region are well known. This credibility is further reinforced by Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement of a $600 billion package with the US, comprising investments and procurement agreements from both public and private sectors.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s position outside NATO shields it from the obligations that compel Western allies to enforce international legal mandates, including the ICC arrest warrants issued against top Russian officials, notably Putin. In such an environment, Saudi Arabia offers a secure venue for direct negotiations with Moscow, free from the pressures of external legal mandates.

Meanwhile, high-ranking European officials express growing concern over their exclusion from the process. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has even suggested the possibility of deploying British troops to enforce any resulting peace deal, a move that underscores the importance European leaders give to Ukraine’s future. The concerns are not merely about the cessation of hostilities, but about the long-term security guarantees that Ukraine desperately needs. European officials argue that a peace process that excludes Kyiv from the initial stages could lead to an agreement lacking the robust assurances necessary to prevent future Russian aggression.

Russian approach

Russia, for its part, is approaching the negotiations with its signature long-game strategy. Recent reports suggest that Kremlin officials are assembling a team of seasoned negotiators well-versed in securing maximum advantage. Their method is well known—ask for a shopping mall when all they need is a cup of coffee. Just one day before the talks, Russian diplomats are already staging a narrative of victory, asserting that the EU and the UK are entirely non-negotiable parties to any future agreements on Ukraine. According to the Russian representative at the UN, Ukraine has irretrievably lost key territories, and any new arrangement should force Kyiv into accepting a demilitarized, neutral state determined by future elections. This approach is designed to create the illusion of strength while ultimately settling for concessions that heavily favor Russian interests.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the principle that “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” is more than just a slogan—it is a critical security principle. Ukrainian leaders are rightfully wary of any agreement negotiated without their active participation. With the current US strategy favoring swift and transactional outcomes rather than comprehensive negotiations, there is a real danger that Kyiv’s position could be compromised. The absence of Ukraine from these early discussions may result in a peace agreement that fails to address the existential risks the nation faces. Without strong security guarantees built into any deal, Ukraine remains vulnerable to renewed incursions and a potential destabilization of the entire region.

In this evolving diplomatic landscape, the contrast between the old and new approaches is stark. The previous risk-averse strategy sought to maintain clear boundaries to prevent escalation, whereas the current approach appears more willing to blur those lines in the hope of bringing an end to the bloodshed. Yet by doing so, there is an inherent risk: the very nation fighting for its survival might be reduced to a bargaining chip in a broader geopolitical deal.

It is imperative that Ukraine’s interests remain at the forefront of any negotiations. The war in Ukraine is not just a regional conflict—it is a struggle that speaks to the fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination. Any peace settlement that fails to incorporate Ukraine’s security concerns is likely to be unstable at best, and catastrophic at worst.

Maksym Skrypchenko is the president of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center

Analyses

Hebrew Media: Israel Fails to Achieve Goals of Gaza Onslaught

CrossFireArabia
February 17, 2025

Israeli media outlets discussed Tel Aviv’s failure to achieve the goals of the war now ongoing for more than a year on the Gaza Strip. Hebrew newspapers stressed that the army is unable to eliminate Hamas, while disagreements are increasing regarding the future of military operations and the ceasefire agreement.

Yitzhak Brik, former commander of the Southern Corps said Israel has not been able to eliminate Hamas despite the war, now in its 15th month. He asked, “If we have failed throughout this period, how can we achieve it now?”

Brik pointed out that Hamas possesses a huge arsenal of weapons, and has developed its combat methods with its fighters exiting the underground tunnels and returning to them easily, making it difficult for the Israeli army to eliminate them.

He added Hamas has regained its strength, and that the Israeli army has destroyed no more than 10% of the tunnels of the Islamist organization, according to Israeli military sources. He also acknowledged that the military operations have not achieved their goals, and that the war has drained the army more so than at the beginning.

The army is a tool of an extremist government

For her part, Yifat Gadot, from the “Families of Soldiers Cry Enough” organization said the Israeli army has become a tool in the hands of an extremist government that is working to prolong the war to achieve its political and ideological interests.

Gadot added that there is a growing conviction among the families of soldiers that the war has become a means of maintaining the government coalition, not achieving security.

As for attorney Yair Nahorai, an expert in religious Zionist movements, he confirmed that the ongoing conflict is not just a war against Hamas, but part of an extremist religious vision that seeks to occupy Gaza, noting that some parties in the Israeli government consider the “sanctity of the land” more important than human life, which complicates the Israeli position even more.

In the same context, political analyst Ben Caspit considered that the real reason behind the slowdown in implementing the second phase of military operations is the political considerations of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He explained that the pressure exerted by right-wing ministers, such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, is obstructing the making of decisive decisions regarding the war, as Netanyahu seeks to maintain the stability of his government coalition instead of focusing on recovering the prisoners.

A Joke in the Middle East

For his part, Ben Gvir attacked the government, describing it as lacking courage, and missing a historic opportunity to impose its conditions on Hamas, adding that Israel has become a “joke in the Middle East” due to what he described as weak and hesitant decisions in managing the war and negotiations.

In contrast, Gil Dickman (a relative of one of the Israeli female prisoners killed in Gaza) responded to Ben Gvir’s statements, accusing him of politicizing the issue of prisoners, and called on him to support Netanyahu in his efforts to return the kidnapped, criticizing his withdrawal from the government due to recent agreements.

In another context, political analyst Dana Weiss stated that the Israeli political crisis escalated after statements by US President Donald Trump, who pressured the government to expedite the release of prisoners, threatening decisive responses if Israel did not respond to his demands.

Weiss confirmed that the Israeli government found itself between internal pressures from the extreme right and American and international pressures pushing towards diplomatic solutions, which further complicates the internal Israeli scene in light of the ongoing military operations in Gaza.