A Cease-fire with Hamas is possible?
The ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel is being celebrated by right-wing supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as proof that Israel can use its military superiority to bend its enemies to its will. However, the reality is more nuanced. While Israel has undeniably dealt significant blows to Hezbollah, the agreement highlights the limitations of military force. Rather than outright victory, Israel must reconcile with the enduring presence of adversaries along its borders and focus on deterring future hostilities. To Netanyahu’s credit, he has acknowledged the constraints of military power in Lebanon. The pressing question now is whether he will come to the same realization about Gaza.
The latest round of hostilities against Hezbollah saw significant Israeli achievements. A covert operation dismantled key communication systems used by Hezbollah commanders, and Netanyahu boasted of crippling the organization’s leadership, rocket capabilities, and terror infrastructure. Yet, Hezbollah’s resilience is evident. The group still managed to launch a major rocket barrage just two days before the ceasefire was announced, and casualty estimates suggest its losses are far from debilitating. Reports indicate Hezbollah retains tens of thousands of fighters and a substantial arsenal, ensuring its capacity to rebuild. The ceasefire essentially revives the terms of the 2006 agreement under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which required Hezbollah’s withdrawal north of the Litani River and the Lebanese Armed Forces’ deployment in southern Lebanon. However, the Lebanese army is too weak to enforce these terms, and UN peacekeepers lack the authority to counter Hezbollah’s activities.
History suggests this agreement will not prevent Hezbollah from reestablishing itself near Israel’s northern border. Just as after 2006, Hezbollah fighters will likely resettle among returning Lebanese civilians, making it challenging to dislodge them without an Israeli ground occupation. Having endured the costly occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982 to 2000, Netanyahu wisely kept the latest military campaign limited to areas close to Israel’s border. Implicitly, Netanyahu seems to accept that Israel can coexist with a constrained Hezbollah as long as it is deterred from aggression. The 2006 ceasefire bought 17 years of relative calm, and Netanyahu appears willing to bet that the new agreement can achieve a similar outcome, allowing tens of thousands of displaced Israelis to return home.
Yet, Netanyahu’s approach to Gaza starkly contrasts with his pragmatism in Lebanon. While announcing the Lebanon ceasefire, he declared an uncompromising goal to “obliterate Hamas,” despite military commanders warning that such a mission is unachievable. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, before being fired, acknowledged that further military operations in Gaza would yield diminishing returns. Hamas has already suffered severe losses, with Netanyahu claiming 20,000 fighters killed and its military capabilities nearly eradicated. Nevertheless, instead of seeking a ceasefire, Netanyahu has continued ordering offensive operations in northern Gaza, resulting in mounting civilian casualties and limited strategic gains.
The reluctance to pursue a Gaza ceasefire stems from political pressures within Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition. Any meaningful truce would likely require major concessions, such as releasing Palestinian prisoners and ending the war. These demands are deeply unpopular with hardliners like Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who not only oppose a ceasefire but also reject any role for the Palestinian Authority in governing Gaza after the conflict. Their vision includes potentially expelling Palestinians and resettling Jewish communities in Gaza, ideas Netanyahu likely opposes but cannot openly reject without jeopardizing his coalition. With his corruption trial looming, Netanyahu cannot alienate these extremist partners.
This political calculus explains why Netanyahu concluded a ceasefire with Hezbollah, a less contentious issue for his government, while continuing relentless military action in Gaza. The conflict in Gaza has trapped Israelis and Palestinians in a vicious cycle of violence with no clear resolution in sight. Neither the United States nor international actors have succeeded in pressuring Netanyahu to shift course, and it remains unclear whether President-elect Donald Trump, set to return to power, will exert meaningful influence on the situation.
Netanyahu’s handling of these parallel conflicts underscores the complex interplay of military strategy and political survival. While the Lebanon ceasefire offers hope for a period of stability, Gaza remains a battlefield where the prospect of peace seems increasingly remote. Whether Netanyahu can overcome the constraints of his coalition and embrace a more pragmatic approach to Gaza remains the defining challenge of his leadership.
Source » timesofisrael.com
