The Conflicting Narrative Over the Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire and the Paradox of National Consensus

As all eyes were focused over the last few days on Syria and the historic events unfolding there, little attention has been given to Lebanon and the troubling statements coming out from Beirut, which tried to downplay the importance of the ceasefire agreement with Israel and to minimize the scope of its conditions. 

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem, who addressed his followers in a televised speech from his hiding place, stated Hezbollah accepted the agreement as a mechanism for implementing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 in southern Lebanon alone. By doing so, he tried to emphasize that from Hezbollah's point of view, the ceasefire agreement is meant to reestablish the "status quo ante" and nothing more. 

Najib Mikati, the interim prime minister of the caretaker Lebanese government, repeated the same narrow interpretation. Mikati publicly referred to the ceasefire agreement as "a sort of an executive mechanism for implementing Resolution 1701." The coordination between Mikati and Hezbollah on that point is not surprising. Mikati is known for his years-long political cooperation with the terrorist organization, and the interim government he is heading is controlled by Hezbollah and its allies. It is used as a political tool to promote Hezbollah's interests. 

Both Hezbollah and the government in Beirut choose to ignore the fact that the ceasefire agreement calls for "full implementation of its predecessor UNSC resolutions,” referring to Resolutions 1559 and 1680 that call for the disarmament of all militias and prohibit arms smuggling into the country. Furthermore, they also choose to ignore the part in the current agreement that specifically calls for the ''disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon" and obligating the Lebanese Army to dismantle all military forces "starting with the Southern Litani Area.” This demonstrates a clear intention in the agreement that the disarmament process will take place on all of Lebanon's territory. 

It is disturbing that both Qassem and Mikati expressed their coordinated and twisted interpretation of the agreement days after Massad Boulos, President-elect Trump’s appointed senior adviser on Middle Eastern affairs, stated the opposite. Boulos said, "there was some misunderstanding initially, especially in Lebanon, where some believed the document only related to the area south of the Litani River, but this is not true. The agreement covers the entire country and addresses the issue of disarming all armed groups, whether militias or paramilitary groups." 

It is therefore clear that Hezbollah and the current Lebanese government under its control have no intention to adhere to the ceasefire conditions. They have already opened a public campaign to create a distorted narrative regarding the conditions they have committed themselves to as part of the agreement. 

Even more disturbing than the geographic scope of the agreement was Mikati's position that implementation of the agreement's demand to disarm Hezbollah "requires national consensus." Those politically and carefully chosen words mean one thing in Lebanon: that Hezbollah has a veto right over any attempt to disarm it. The response of the opposition parties to this announcement by Mikati was swift, as they stated that Mikati's words are "providing official cover for illegal weapons...it gives those who possess weapons the right to keep them, contrary to the government's pledge and commitment.” Mikati is trying to implement the paradox that for years has been preventing Lebanon from being a normal and sovereign state: No "national consensus" can ever be achieved on this core issue, as Hezbollah will never willingly forfeit its arms, which are a crucial element of its political power. In addition, Hezbollah, through its mouthpiece Al-Akhbar newspaper, sent a clear yet veiled threat to the political echelon, citing undisclosed sources in the military, that any attempt to push the Lebanese Army to confront Hezbollah over surrendering its weapons would lead to cases of rebellion and risk the cohesion of the Lebanese Army. 

Thus, through a combination of statements aspiring to empty the content of the ceasefire agreement, insisting on impossible preconditions to the disarmament of Hezbollah, and threatening the cohesion of the Army, one of the only functioning institutions in Lebanon, Hezbollah and its allies are aiming to thwart full implementation of the ceasefire. Those efforts resemble the moves Hezbollah took after the 2006 Lebanon War, which have enabled the organization to work around the limitations of UNSCR 1701 in southern Lebanon for the past 18 years. The devastating outcome of the international community allowing Hezbollah to do so was the recent war. This mistake must not be repeated. 

Dror Doron is a senior advisor at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) focusing on Hezbollah and Lebanon.  He spent nearly two decades as a senior analyst in the Office of Israel's Prime Minister. Dror is on Twitter @DrorDoron.