Ceasefire Between Lebanon and Israel: An Analytical Perspective

On Wednesday, November 27, a ceasefire agreement was announced between Lebanon and Israel. This development has sparked debates among politicians and media analysts regarding the primary beneficiaries of the agreement. Was it a strategic victory for Lebanon or Israel? This analysis seeks to address that question.

The Nature of War: Beyond Victory and Defeat

Many view wars in binary terms of victory or defeat, assuming their primary goal is military conquest. However, this perspective oversimplifies the reality. Wars are ultimately tools to achieve political objectives, such as territorial occupation, crippling an adversary’s capabilities, or compelling political decisions that favor one side.

Drawing parallels with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, we see how ambiguous outcomes challenge the notion of absolute victory. Ukraine has succeeded in defending its capital and much of its territory, preventing Russia from achieving its rapid conquest goals. Conversely, Russia has secured NATO’s exclusion from Ukraine and strained the resources and resolve of Ukraine’s Western allies. If the war ended today, neither side could claim total victory, as both achieved partial success at best.

Applying This Framework to the Lebanon-Israel Ceasefire

Using this lens, Lebanon can be said to have achieved significant objectives:

1. 1. Support for Gaza: Lebanon’s actions served to provide substantial solidarity with Gaza, a key political and moral victory.

1. 1. Damaging Israel’s Military Infrastructure: Targeting critical Israeli military installations, including Unit 8200’s facilities, inflicted notable blows to Israel’s operational capabilities.

Militarily, Israel faced unexpected challenges, particularly in its failure to penetrate southern Lebanon. With significant damage to its tanks and personnel, Israel’s losses—though often downplayed—are likely more severe than publicly disclosed. For a small military like Israel’s, such losses are strategically damaging.

Israel’s Gains in the Ceasefire

From Israel’s perspective, the ceasefire offers a temporary reprieve. Key achievements include:

1. 1. Time for Strategic Repositioning: Israel now has two months to regroup, repair its northern forces, and intensify its operations in Gaza without the immediate distraction of northern hostilities.

1. 1. Targeting Hezbollah’s Capabilities: While Hezbollah remained active until the ceasefire’s last hours, Israel claims it degraded parts of the group’s military infrastructure.

Mutual Exhaustion and Strategic Stalemate

The ceasefire underscores the exhaustion of both sides. Neither party could sustain further military operations, signaling a tacit acknowledgment of a strategic stalemate. For Israel, the ceasefire allows for replenishing weapon supplies, primarily from the United States and Western allies. Similarly, Hezbollah will likely receive resupplies from Iran and potentially from China and Russia, which seek to counterbalance Israel’s regional influence.

This equilibrium reflects the enduring nature of the conflict, where external actors play significant roles in sustaining the belligerents and preventing decisive outcomes.

The Role of Israel as a “Functional State”

The ceasefire also revisits the idea, articulated by Dr. Abdelwahab El-Messiri, that Israel functions as a “functional state” established by the West to destabilize the region and suppress the emergence of strong Arab states. The war and its aftermath reaffirm Israel’s role in perpetuating regional fragmentation.

Ceasefire Durability: Lessons from History

One critical question remains: Will Israel honor the ceasefire for the next two months? Historical precedents suggest otherwise. Israel has a long history of breaking ceasefires whenever it perceives an opportunity or advantage. The current Israeli government, led by a prime minister known for using diversionary tactics, may escalate hostilities again if faced with mounting internal pressure.

Conclusion

The ceasefire is not a clear victory for either Lebanon or Israel. Each side achieved partial goals, but neither can claim total success. Israel will use the pause to recalibrate its military focus, while Hezbollah and its allies will prepare for potential future confrontations. The enduring question is not who won this round but rather how long the fragile calm will last before the cycle of violence resumes.