A deal to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon went into effect last Wednesday, but already there have been multiple claims of cease-fire violations by either side.
They have continued to fire on each other, though at a far less intense pace, raising questions about the durability of the truce.
Here’s what’s to know.
No one is saying the deal has collapsed.
“I’ve been around Lebanon cease-fire agreements for decades, and there was no cease-fire agreement that wasn’t initially broken,” said Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and a former State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator.
The real question, he suggested, is whether the parties have the will to absorb violations and exercise restraint while they get through the initial 60-day phase.
Both sides are making claims of violations.
In statements over the weekend, the Israeli military said it had carried out strikes to enforce cease-fire violations, including killing Hezbollah militants and bombing the group’s facilities.
On Monday, Hezbollah said — and Israel confirmed — that it had fired munitions into a border area known as Shebaa Farms in response to a series of Israeli cease-fire violations, including airstrikes and shootings, over the previous days. It was the first time since the cease-fire that Hezbollah fired into Israel-controlled land. Both Lebanon and Israel claim Shebaa Farms as their own. Hezbollah said the strike was meant as a warning.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called the Hezbollah strike “a severe violation of the cease-fire” and pledged in a statement on Monday that Israel “will respond forcefully.”
After the strike on Shebaa Farms, the Israeli military said that it had bombarded targets in Lebanon. Israeli strikes on Monday, including those in response to Hezbollah’s actions, killed at least 11 people, said Lebanon’s health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.
What the cease-fire deal really says.
Even amid the strikes, the fragile truce apparently remains in place, and experts say that it could still stick.
Under the terms of the deal, which was brokered by the United States and France, Israel has 60 days to withdraw its military from Lebanon, while Hezbollah is supposed to withdraw north of the Litani River, leaving a buffer in southern Lebanon between the militant group and Israel’s northern border. The Lebanese Army, which is not a party to the conflict, is supposed to oversee and enforce security there.
The Israeli withdrawal is expected to happen in phases. The details are not yet worked out and are supposed to be negotiated with the Lebanese Army and overseen by an international committee chaired by the United States. Israeli officials have said repeatedly that during that time they will respond to any provocation, and they have told civilians not to return yet to southern Lebanon.
The implementation period was written into the deal for a reason, Mr. Miller said. “Hiccups, glitches and violations” are to be expected in the early days — and no one can say yet what that will mean for the ultimate viability of the deal, he said.
“If you can get through 60 days without a collapse of the agreement, then you will have a strategic pause,” he said, which might prove to be viable long-term.
Can the deal hold, even with violations?
The initial claims of infractions show the fragility of the deal and the difficulty of enforcing agreements under international law more broadly, said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy institute in Washington. It’s one thing to sign an agreement, she said, and altogether another to enforce it.
Under the terms of the agreement, both Israel and Lebanon can exercise their right to self defense, as long as it’s consistent with international law. The details and enforcement mechanisms remain hazy.
The United States and France, alongside the United Nations, are supposed to play a role in assessing violations. But it is not clear whether any mechanisms are fully in place at this point or how they are supposed to work.
Israel’s leaders have said they will “enforce” the deal militarily, arguing that even small violations could embolden the Lebanese armed group.
Despite the uncertainties, the fact that Israel and Lebanon reached an agreement, and that Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, said it would abide by the terms, shows that — for now — all involved see benefit to a pause, experts said.
Ms. Kavanagh said she expected violations and failures but was not entirely pessimistic, because all sides “have incentives to make it work.”
The conflict may not be resolved in the long run, Mr. Miller said, but he advised against being overly swayed by daily headlines about violations.
For now, he said, “commitments will be measured over a two-month period.”
The post Why Israel and Hezbollah Are Still Firing Amid a Cease-Fire appeared first on New York Times.
