Israel and Lebanon Have a Ceasefire: What Happens Next

Watch the Episode

Video originally published on December 2, 2024.

On November 26, 2024, Israel's Security Cabinet approved a ceasefire agreement with Lebanon, marking a critical diplomatic breakthrough in the Israel-Hezbollah War. Brokered with assistance from the United States and taking effect in the early morning hours of November 27, the ceasefire represents a temporary but vital truce aimed at bringing a permanent end to hostilities that have devastated both nations. The agreement comes after months of intensified conflict that began with Hezbollah's rocket attacks in solidarity with Hamas following the October 7, 2023 terror attacks, and escalated dramatically in September 2024 when Israel launched a comprehensive campaign to dismantle Hezbollah's military capabilities. With over 3,500 people killed in Lebanon—many of them civilians—and roughly 140 Israeli troops and civilians dead, alongside hundreds of thousands displaced on both sides, the ceasefire couldn't come a moment too soon.

Key Takeaways

On November 26, 2024, Israel's Security Cabinet approved a ceasefire agreement with Lebanon, brokered with US assistance, taking effect at 4:00 AM local time on November 27.

The ceasefire requires Hezbollah to withdraw its fighters and weaponry from southern Lebanon over a sixty-day period, moving north of the Litani River approximately twenty miles from the Israeli border, while Israel simultaneously withdraws its forces to its side of the border.

The Lebanese Army, supported by approximately 5,000 troops and the existing UNIFIL peacekeeping force, will enforce the buffer zone—a significant improvement over previous arrangements that failed after the 2006 war.

France and the United States have committed resources to support Lebanese forces in enforcing the agreement, though no US combat troops will be deployed directly to the buffer zone.

Israel retains the right to respond to ceasefire violations, including Hezbollah attempts to rearm or rebuild infrastructure near the border, as emphasized by both Prime Minister Netanyahu and outgoing US President Biden.

The agreement essentially represents an updated, better-enforced version of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 from 2006, which failed to prevent the current conflict.

The Path to War: From Border Skirmishes to Full-Scale Conflict

The Israel-Hezbollah conflict that this ceasefire aims to resolve began in early October 2023, when Hezbollah launched rocket attacks into Israel in solidarity with Hamas following the massive terror attacks of October 7, 2023, from Gaza. For nearly a year, Israel and the Iranian-backed paramilitary organization traded fire across the Israel-Lebanon border in what amounted to a sustained but limited exchange of hostilities.

The conflict's character changed dramatically in September 2024 when Israel's Security Cabinet announced a new war aim: returning tens of thousands of displaced residents to northern Israeli territory, where Hezbollah's continual rocket attacks had forced them to flee. This announcement sparked international fears of a major escalation, as Hezbollah represented an exponentially better-armed and more powerful military threat than Hamas in Gaza.

What followed revealed the extraordinary depth of Israel's intelligence penetration into Hezbollah operations. A pair of massive sabotage attacks using explosives planted in pagers and handheld radios used by Hezbollah operatives took thousands of fighters and civilian members out of action. Israel then launched a major airstrike campaign that decapitated the majority of Hezbollah's leadership structure, including longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah and nearly all military commanders. Despite achieving high success in dismantling Hezbollah's command structure, the air campaign resulted in significant civilian casualties.

With Hezbollah's chain of command devastated, Israel launched a limited ground invasion in southern Lebanon, clearing out fighters in the immediate vicinity of the Israeli border and dismantling weapons stockpiles, tunnel networks, and other physical infrastructure that would have enabled Hezbollah ground attacks onto Israeli territory. The cumulative effect of these operations represented a series of decisive Israeli victories, but at tremendous cost to Lebanon.

The Human Cost and Strategic Calculations

The intensification of hostilities in mid-September 2024 proved devastating for Lebanon. Since the start of violence in 2023, over 3,500 people have been killed and 15,000 injured, with a high proportion being civilians. Most of these casualties occurred after Israel's September escalation. On the Israeli side, roughly 140 troops and civilians have been killed during the same period. The displacement crisis affected tens of thousands in Israel and hundreds of thousands in Lebanon, creating a humanitarian emergency on both sides of the border.

For Israel to achieve its stated goal—preventing Hezbollah from posing any danger to Israeli residents for the foreseeable future—would have required a comprehensive dismantling of the organization and pushing its fighters north of the Litani River, in accordance with decades-old UN peace terms. Accomplishing this militarily would have necessitated either a massive surge of troops into Lebanon, territorial occupation of lands south of the Litani, or a diplomatic breakthrough. The costs of the former options, both in terms of Israeli military resources and international political capital, made the diplomatic path increasingly attractive as the campaign progressed.

Diplomatic Breakthrough: How the Deal Came Together

The breakthrough that led to the November 26 ceasefire began taking shape when Hezbollah's new leader, Naim Qassem, published a video suggesting that the organization's terms for a ceasefire had changed. Rather than the more prohibitive terms included in earlier discussions, Qassem's requirements were straightforward: Israel would need to stop attacking Lebanon, Lebanon would need to remain a sovereign nation, and everything else was implied to be negotiable. This shift came shortly after Iran urged Hezbollah, its proxy force, to consider accepting a ceasefire rather than continuing hostilities.

The change in Hezbollah's position reflected the organization's degraded capabilities. After months of sustained Israeli campaigning, Hezbollah found itself low on rockets, experienced fighters, and reliable decision-makers. While the group had long been known for its contingency planning and resilient structure designed to withstand targeted attacks and leadership losses, Israel appeared to have worked through so many dismantled contingency plans that even this notoriously resilient organization couldn't maintain its operational effectiveness.

Meanwhile, Israeli officials increasingly signaled interest in a Lebanese ceasefire to re-pivot attention, manpower, and priorities back to Gaza, particularly as intelligence suggested Hezbollah no longer posed an imminent threat. The Lebanese government, which had not itself been party to the war, revealed details of a proposed draft agreement calling for a sixty-day truce. Lebanon's leadership expressed optimism about reaching a deal and indicated broad willingness to accept potentially thorny compromise terms.

The global diplomatic community intensified efforts in response to these signals. US envoys passed terms back and forth between Israel and Lebanon in private, with public indicators showing progress in critical areas. A potentially major disruption occurred when the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, but this was smoothed over between Israel, the United States, and France.

When Israel began applying pressure on the United States to stonewall the deal, lead negotiator Amos Hochstein reportedly threatened to withdraw from the efforts entirely, which would have cost Israel an interlocutor its leadership regarded as reliable and trusted. Israel held meetings across the weekend prior to the deal, with intelligence chiefs and ministers agreeing to move forward, while shuttle diplomacy with Lebanon ensured agreement to changing terms as they emerged.

Both sides launched final challenges during that weekend. Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon's capital city left at least twenty people dead, while a Hezbollah attack involving over 200 rockets left Israeli neighborhoods in flames. However, neither side's combat actions deterred continued engagement with the peace process. On Tuesday, November 26, Israel agreed to the terms, Lebanon's approval followed as a formality, and at 4:00 AM local time on Wednesday, November 27, Israel and Hezbollah entered a state of truce.

The Ceasefire Agreement: Terms and Enforcement Mechanisms

The ceasefire deal includes significant compromises by both sides and establishes a pathway to long-term enforcement of a buffer zone intended to keep the conflict dormant. At its core, the agreement requires Hezbollah to remove its fighters from southern Lebanon over sixty days. During this period, Hezbollah personnel must move themselves and their weaponry from the area between the agreed-upon, unofficial border line delineating Lebanon from Israel and the Litani River—a distance averaging about thirty kilometers or twenty miles from north to south, including a southeastern stretch extending further into Lebanese territory. Over the same sixty days, Israel will withdraw its military personnel, weaponry, and civilians to territory south of the agreed-upon border. With both sides' fighting forces removed from the area, the hope is for Israel and Lebanon to begin civilian resettlement as soon as possible.

The enforcement mechanism represents a dramatic improvement over Israel's previous withdrawal from Lebanon after fighting Hezbollah. Previously, a flimsy pro-Lebanon paramilitary was expected to keep the area free of Hezbollah fighters but was quickly overrun. This time, the Lebanese Army will expand its presence south of the Litani instead. The Lebanese military will be responsible for ensuring that military infrastructure of both the Israel Defense Forces and Hezbollah is dismantled and cannot be easily re-established. Roughly 5,000 Lebanese troops will be assigned to the effort, with support from UNIFIL, the United Nations peacekeeping force already active in the area.

This arrangement would largely reset the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, agreed at the end of the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war. However, Resolution 1701 proved ineffective then, so France and the United States have committed to investing their own resources to bridge the gap. US officials have been clear that no American combat troops will be deployed to the buffer zone directly, but the Lebanese Armed Forces will receive direct support, with the French military providing much of the same.

Israel retains some right to respond to violations of the deal, as Prime Minister Netanyahu personally emphasized—seemingly attempting to preempt backlash from Israel's hard-right political wing. Netanyahu stated: "If Hezbollah violates the agreement and tries to arm itself, we will attack. If it tries to rebuild terrorist infrastructure near the border, we will attack. If it launches a rocket, if it digs a tunnel, if it brings in a truck carrying rockets, we will attack." Outgoing US President Joe Biden affirmed Netanyahu's view, stating: "If Hezbollah or anyone else breaks the deal and poses a direct threat to Israel, then Israel retains the right to self-defense consistent with international law." It remains unclear whether this arrangement is explicitly included in the ceasefire or represents a supplemental agreement reached between Israel and the US directly, without Lebanon's involvement.

Political Victories and Strategic Narratives

If the ceasefire holds across the sixty-day period for which it's currently established, negotiators and diplomatic personnel hope it will evolve into a permanent agreement to keep lands south of the Litani clear and fighting forces of both sides pacified on their own territory. It would represent a 2020s expression of what the 2006 UN resolution was supposed to achieve—a better-enforced, better-monitored version of the same agreement intended to regulate the area all along. With peacekeeping force cover, Israel and Lebanon would hopefully settle territorial disputes across their shared border, build a lasting framework to avoid future violence, and work toward rebuilding devastated communities on both sides.

In a political sense, both Israel and Hezbollah can claim victory to their respective constituencies. Israel eviscerated the Hezbollah organization, removed its offensive capabilities, and forced it into a posture where, on paper, it lacks the ability to pose a threat to Israel again. Hezbollah, by contrast, can claim that its resilience proved too much for Israel to defeat in battle, and that rather than commit to what it knew would be a ruinous larger offensive, Israel chose to leave Lebanon and negotiate peace as equals. These competing narratives, while seemingly contradictory, may actually serve the cause of peace by allowing both sides to save face domestically while accepting the practical terms of the agreement.

First Days of the Truce: Testing the Agreement

At the end of Wednesday, November 27, local time, the ceasefire had broadly held. Neither Hezbollah nor Israel launched subsequent attacks against each other, and Lebanese Army and UNIFIL forces were not obstructed in carrying out their tasks to prepare for the coming weeks. However, several disturbances tested the agreement's early implementation.

In one case, the IDF admitted to firing shots at vehicles driving toward what it referred to as a "zone prohibited for movement" in southern Lebanon. According to the IDF, the drivers turned around without further escalation. In another incident that has yet to be fully explained, journalists via Lebanon's National News Agency claimed that two journalists were injured when Israeli troops opened fire on a group of clearly marked reporters and press. Meanwhile, gunshots rang out across the southern suburbs of Beirut, though these are believed to have been celebratory in nature.

Across Lebanon, civilians speaking to international press expressed skepticism that the ceasefire would hold, especially in areas where bombing had occurred in prior days or even the prior night. However, the follow-up violence they expected had not materialized at the time of writing.

Within hours of the announcement, roads leading south from Beirut were choked with traffic—cars and trucks driven by people eager to return home and assess what had survived the fighting. Both Hezbollah and the political movement Amal laid out guidelines for these returns, although those hoping to return to more southerly areas where IDF troops remain active may face obstacles.

Israel actively discouraged premature returns. Lieutenant Colonel Avichay Adraee, the IDF's Arab media spokesman, explained on social media: "You are prohibited from moving towards the villages that the IDF has asked to be evacuated or towards the IDF forces in the area. For your safety and the safety of your family members, refrain from moving to the area. We will inform you when it is safe to return to your homes." The Lebanese Army expressed a similar sentiment, indicating that residents of border villages should not return yet.

These statements underscore that Israel has sixty days to vacate the area, and while both Hezbollah and Israel have shifted into defensive postures that don't allow proactive attacks against each other, neither group will be able to leave fully for at least several weeks. On Israel's side, it remains unclear when tens of thousands of displaced northerners will be able to return to their homes. Most now live in hotels or other temporary accommodation, far from the reach of most Hezbollah munitions, but Prime Minister Netanyahu had not issued a return timeline at the time of writing. If Israel fears the ceasefire may not be airtight, resettlement consideration could be delayed for weeks or even months.

International Response and Regional Implications

Around the world, the ceasefire has been lauded as a triumph of peace and diplomacy, as well as a major victory for outgoing US President Biden and embattled French President Emmanuel Macron. International aid organizations signaled plans to eventually resume or step up humanitarian support if the ceasefire holds, and world nations paid special attention to renewed hopes for establishing greater stability in Lebanon, a place largely regarded as a failed state for several years.

In a critical show of support suggesting the ceasefire might actually hold, both Hezbollah's major backer Iran and its larger supporters Russia and China expressed unanimous welcome for the deal rather than opposing it in any meaningful way. Iran's Foreign Minister even backed off from promises to retaliate against last month's Israeli airstrikes, suggesting that other regional developments could render such retaliation unnecessary. These early indications suggest that major regional and global powers see value in maintaining the ceasefire rather than undermining it for strategic advantage.

Potential Pitfalls and Challenges Ahead

In an ideal scenario, everything moving forward would be net positive for the region. Hezbollah would vacate the buffer zone south of the Litani, Israeli troops would return to their territory, and both the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL would prove themselves capable peacekeepers where peacekeeping influence is badly needed. Israeli residents would return home with government aid, while Lebanese residents would continue the resettlement already appearing to be underway. Lebanon would reopen and rebuild health centers, schools, and other human infrastructure devastated by Israel's campaign, while Israel would reconsolidate forces, return exhausted reservists to civilian life, and pivot toward other pressing concerns: the immediate situation in Gaza and the larger threat presented by Iran. Eventually, Israel and Lebanon would hammer out remaining disputes, agree on a lasting peace accord, and the battered regional population would reconcile.

However, real life is rarely so neat and tidy, and international experts have already raised alarms about potential pitfalls in the current ceasefire arrangement. In one key blind spot, it's unclear that the Lebanese Army is ready or able to confront Hezbollah forces directly while patrolling land south of the Litani. The Lebanese Army has already stated it's not capable of fulfilling its obligations alone under the deal, citing both financial constraints and shortages in manpower and equipment. The hope is that international support will bridge the gap, but there are no guarantees such support will arrive.

Nor are there guarantees that Hezbollah, even in its weakened state, couldn't pose a direct head-to-head threat in engagements of its own choosing against the Lebanese Army. If skirmishes break out, they could destabilize Lebanon even further, inflaming tensions between supporters of the predominantly Christian Army and the Shi'a Muslim supporters of Hezbollah. Historically, the Lebanese military hasn't been able to rein Hezbollah in for decades, while UNIFIL peacekeepers in the area haven't had the power to actively confront Hezbollah unless attacked directly. These structural weaknesses in the enforcement mechanism represent the most significant threat to the ceasefire's long-term viability and will require sustained international attention and support to overcome.

Related Coverage

FAQ

What are the main terms of the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire agreement?

The ceasefire requires Hezbollah to withdraw its fighters and weaponry from southern Lebanon over sixty days, moving north of the Litani River (approximately twenty miles from the Israeli border). Israel will simultaneously withdraw its military forces to its side of the border. The Lebanese Army, supported by roughly 5,000 troops and the UNIFIL peacekeeping force, will enforce the buffer zone. France and the United States have committed resources to support Lebanese forces, and Israel retains the right to respond to ceasefire violations.

How did the Israel-Hezbollah conflict escalate to the point of needing a ceasefire?

The conflict began in early October 2023 when Hezbollah launched rocket attacks into Israel in solidarity with Hamas after the October 7 terror attacks. For nearly a year, both sides traded fire across the border. In September 2024, Israel announced a new war aim of returning displaced northern residents, then launched a comprehensive campaign including sabotage attacks on Hezbollah's pagers and radios, airstrikes that killed leader Hassan Nasrallah and most military commanders, and a limited ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

What role did the United States play in brokering the ceasefire?

US envoys passed terms back and forth between Israel and Lebanon in private, helping to reach agreement in critical areas. Lead negotiator Amos Hochstein reportedly threatened to withdraw from efforts entirely when Israel tried to pressure the US to stonewall the deal, which helped keep negotiations on track. The US also committed resources to support Lebanese forces in enforcing the buffer zone, though no American combat troops will be deployed directly. President Biden affirmed Israel's right to self-defense if the ceasefire is violated.

How is this ceasefire different from the 2006 UN Security Council Resolution 1701?

While the agreement largely resets the terms of Resolution 1701, it includes stronger enforcement mechanisms. Previously, a flimsy pro-Lebanon paramilitary was expected to keep the area free of Hezbollah fighters but was quickly overrun. This time, the Lebanese Army will expand its presence south of the Litani with approximately 5,000 troops, supported by UNIFIL. Additionally, France and the United States have committed their own resources to bridge enforcement gaps.

What led Hezbollah to accept the ceasefire terms?

Hezbollah's degraded capabilities were a major factor—the organization was low on rockets, experienced fighters, and reliable decision-makers after months of sustained Israeli campaigning that worked through multiple contingency plans. Iran also urged Hezbollah to consider accepting a ceasefire. Hezbollah's new leader Naim Qassem signaled simplified terms: Israel would stop attacking Lebanon, Lebanon would remain sovereign, and everything else was negotiable.

Can displaced civilians return to their homes immediately?

Not immediately. Both the IDF and the Lebanese Army have discouraged premature returns to border areas. Israel has sixty days to vacate southern Lebanon, and while roads from Beirut were quickly choked with traffic from eager returnees, those heading to more southerly areas where IDF troops remain active may face obstacles. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Netanyahu had not issued a return timeline for displaced northerners at the time of writing, and resettlement could be delayed weeks or months if the ceasefire is deemed unreliable.

What are the biggest risks to the ceasefire holding long-term?

Key risks include: the Lebanese Army's admitted inability to fulfill its obligations alone due to financial and manpower constraints; uncertainty about whether Hezbollah will fully withdraw from southern Lebanon where its support base and fighters' families are rooted; potential skirmishes between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah that could destabilize Lebanon further; political pressure from Israel's hard-right coalition members who oppose the deal; growing radicalization in devastated Lebanese communities; and uncertainty about how the incoming Trump administration will handle the situation.

How did the international community respond to the ceasefire?

The ceasefire was widely lauded as a triumph of peace and diplomacy and a major victory for outgoing US President Biden and French President Macron. Critically, Hezbollah's major backer Iran and its supporters Russia and China all expressed support for the deal. Iran's Foreign Minister even backed off promises to retaliate against Israeli airstrikes. International aid organizations signaled plans to resume or increase humanitarian support if the ceasefire holds.

Sources

About the Author

Jackson Reed

Jackson Reed creates and presents analysis focused on military doctrine, strategic competition, and conflict dynamics.

About the Team →