Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Agreement: Strategic Withdrawals and Persistent Stalemates

Introduction

The Israel-Lebanon ceasefire agreement, brokered in November 2024 with U.S. and French mediation, has entered a critical phase as the February 18, 2025, deadline for Israeli troop withdrawals passes.

While the agreement has temporarily halted hostilities, its implementation has exposed deep structural tensions over security guarantees, sovereignty, and the role of non-state actors.

Israel’s decision to retain five strategic positions in southern Lebanon despite the withdrawal timeline has cast doubt on the long-term viability of the truce, while Hezbollah’s diminished but persistent military capabilities and Lebanon’s fractured governance continue to undermine regional stability.

Historical Context and Ceasefire Framework

The ceasefire builds on precedents set by UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1701 (2006), which called for the disarmament of militias in Lebanon and the establishment of a buffer zone patrolled by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and UNIFIL peacekeepers.

The 2024 agreement aimed to end 14 months of cross-border violence triggered by Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which prompted Hezbollah to launch rockets in solidarity.

Under the terms, Israel agreed to withdraw from southern Lebanon within 60 days, while Hezbollah was required to dismantle military infrastructure north of the Litani River.

A U.S.-led International Monitoring and Implementation Mechanism (IMIM) was established to oversee compliance, with Israel’s phased withdrawal contingent on the LAF’s deployment and Hezbollah’s disarmament.

However, the agreement included flexibility for timeline adjustments, which Israel invoked on January 24, 2025, citing Lebanon’s failure to fully dismantle Hezbollah’s assets. The deadline was subsequently extended to February 18.

Partial Withdrawals and Strategic Retention

As of February 18, Israel has withdrawn from populated areas but maintains control over five elevated positions along the border, including Mount Dov (Shebaa Farms) and hilltops overlooking the Israeli towns of Metula and Kiryat Shmona.

These sites provide surveillance advantages and control over key supply routes, which Israel argues are necessary to protect northern communities where 60,000 residents remain displaced.

Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani, an Israeli military spokesperson, described the retention as a “temporary measure” approved by the IMIM to ensure security during the LAF’s gradual deployment.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has rejected the partial withdrawal, asserting that “not a single Israeli soldier” should remain on Lebanese soil.

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem echoed this sentiment, warning that “no excuses” justify delays.

The Lebanese government’s reliance on Hezbollah’s political support complicates its ability to enforce the ceasefire unilaterally, creating a vacuum that perpetuates mistrust.

Hezbollah’s Diminished Capacity and Strategic Calculations

Hezbollah’s military capabilities have been significantly degraded by Israeli airstrikes targeting its leadership and infrastructure.

Since September 2024, Israel has eliminated most of Hezbollah’s senior commanders, including Hassan Nasrallah, and destroyed over 60% of its rocket arsenals.

The group’s Radwan forces, specialized in cross-border operations, have retreated north of the Litani River, but remnants continue to operate covertly in villages near the Blue Line.

Despite these losses, Hezbollah retains an estimated 50,000 short-range rockets and the logistical networks to replenish supplies via Syrian corridors.

The group’s political wing has framed the ceasefire as a victory, claiming it forced Israel’s partial withdrawal, but its inability to prevent the LAF’s deployment underscores a erosion of its “resistance” narrative.

Analysts note that Hezbollah’s acceptance of the truce reflects a pragmatic shift to avoid further devastation, though its long-term commitment to demilitarization remains doubtful.

Regional Dynamics and International Involvement

The ceasefire’s fragility is exacerbated by broader regional tensions. Iran, Hezbollah’s primary patron, has paused direct involvement due to depleted missile stocks and internal economic crises but continues to advocate for proxy resistance.

Conversely, Arab states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have tacitly supported Israel’s operations, viewing Hezbollah and Iran as greater threats than Hamas.

The U.S. has played a dual role: leading the IMIM while supplying Israel with advanced munitions.

President Biden’s administration endorsed the deadline extension to February 18, prioritizing stability ahead of the 2025 U.S. presidential election. France, leveraging historical ties to Lebanon, has pressured Beirut to accelerate LAF deployments, though progress remains slow due to funding shortages and sectarian disputes over command roles.

Humanitarian and Reconstruction Challenges

The conflict has displaced over 300,000 Lebanese and 60,000 Israelis, with widespread destruction in southern Lebanon’s border villages.

Israel’s policy of demolishing homes suspected of housing Hezbollah tunnels has further complicated return efforts, leaving 22% of southern Lebanon’s infrastructure in ruins. In Sidon, an Israeli drone strike on February 17 killed Hamas operative Muhammad Shaheen, highlighting the risks of spillover violence.

Lebanon’s economic collapse—with inflation exceeding 500% and the lira losing 95% of its value—has hampered reconstruction. International donors have conditioned aid on Hezbollah’s disarmament, a non-starter for the group’s political allies.

Meanwhile, northern Israel’s evacuated residents demand permanent security guarantees, with many refusing to return until Hezbollah’s rocket threat is fully neutralized.

Persistent Stalemates and Future Scenarios

The ceasefire’s success hinges on two irreconcilable demands: Israel’s insistence on overriding security control and Lebanon’s requirement for unconditional sovereignty.

Israel’s retained positions, though framed as temporary, risk normalizing a de facto occupation, undermining the LAF’s legitimacy.

Conversely, Hezbollah’s residual presence in southern Lebanon violates the agreement’s core terms, giving Israel pretexts for future strikes.

Potential escalation triggers include

Hezbollah’s rearmament

Iran’s ability to resupply rockets via Syria could prompt Israeli preemptive strikes.

LAF-UNIFIL friction

Clashes between peacekeepers and Hezbollah loyalists during disarmament operations could destabilize the buffer zone.

Political collapse in Beirut

Parliament’s failure to elect a president (a process delayed since 2022) may reignite sectarian violence, complicating LAF deployments.

Conclusion

A Fragile Interlude

The Israel-Lebanon ceasefire has achieved a tentative calm but remains a strategic stalemate.

Israel’s partial withdrawals reflect a calculated gamble that Hezbollah’s degradation will allow northern residents to return, while Lebanon’s reliance on international patrons like France exposes its limited sovereignty. For Hezbollah, the truce is a tactical pause to rebuild under political cover, not a surrender.

The agreement’s extension to February 18 merely postpones harder choices. Without a credible path to disarmament and mutual security guarantees, the region remains one provocation away from renewed war.

As the U.S. and France prioritize short-term stability, the long-term vision of UNSCR 1701—a sovereign Lebanon free of armed groups—seems increasingly illusory.

The alternative, as Brigadier General Assaf Orion notes, is not peace but a “managed conflict” punctuated by episodic violence.

In this precarious equilibrium, civilians on both sides remain the ultimate hostages to unresolved geopolitical rivalries.