A ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has taken effect, aiming to end more than a year of war in Lebanon.

However, uncertainty looms over how long the fragile peace will last.

Both sides have accused each other of violating the terms of the agreement.

Meanwhile, Israel continues to call on displaced Lebanese not to return to dozens of southern villages in this current stage of the ceasefire.

It also continues to impose a daily curfew for people moving across the Litani River between 5 pm and 7 am.

As a ceasefire deal is reached in Lebanon, the Israeli military continues to scale up attacks across Gaza, leaving many to wonder why Israel has not brokered a deal with Hamas.

Speaking with the Vaultz News, Mr. Henry Osabutey, a Human rights, Peace and Conflict Expert, expressed optimism that the 60-day ceasefire will hold.

However, he cautioned that the ceasefire’s durability depends on the willingness of both sides to engage in good faith and address the underlying grievances.

He added, “history has taught us that ceasefire in such deeply polarized conflict is very fragile.”

“I mean, violations such as Israel’s continued overflight or Hezbollah’s potential provocations; All these undermine trust and signals an absence of genuine commitment to peace. These violations risk reigniting hostilities, making it imperative for international mediators to enforce accountability.

So most of the time, the international mediators who are supposed to enforce the ceasefire face a lot of accountability mechanisms.”
Henry Osabutey

According to him, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu’s motivation behind agreeing to the ceasefire likely stems from a combination of domestic and international pressures.

He noted that domestically, the conflict has caused a lot of strain with Israel’s citizens in border areas living under constant threat and internationally, Israel faces mounting criticism for the humanitarian toll on Lebanon and the broader region.

“Agreeing to the ceasefire allows Netanyahu to appear as, someone who is pragmatic and someone who is seeking stability even while he’s still pursuing strategic interest. It also provides an opportunity to him to recalibrate Israel’s military and diplomatic strategies without the immediate pressure of active conflict.”
Henry Osabutey

Commenting on Israel’s restrictions on movement and warnings against returning to southern villages, Osabutey remarked that Israel’s actions create a perception of peace as fragile and conditional. “These are eroding trust among Lebanese communities so by advising against returns and imposing curfews, Israel may just aim to maintain a buffer zone if I may say so,” he stated.

“So, the buffer only means that they are just limiting Hezbollah’s operational freedom. However, such measures deepen the humanitarian crisis for displaced families and resentment, which could also serve as a recruitment for militant groups. This strategy suggests a focus on security through deterrence rather than reconciliation, risking prolonged instabilities.”
Henry Osabutey

Israeli Attacks To Derail U.S’ Goal Of Gaza Ceasefire

A day after announcing the Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire, US President Joe Biden said that he would resume efforts with international partners to end the Gaza war but the Israeli military is relentless in its attacks on the besieged enclave.

When asked if the violence would derail Washington’s goals, Osabutey replied in the affirmative.

He added that it also highlights the asymmetry in US, saying that the country supports Israel, and also advocates for peace at the same time, which “diminishes its credibility as a mediator.”

Also, Osabutey noted that the ceasefire in Lebanon could also signal a shift towards negotiating solutions.

However, he stressed for this to really happen, U.S efforts must move beyond temporal policies and address the root causes of the violence, “including humanitarian reliefs and sustainable conflict resolution frameworks, which will show that they are fair and they are impartial in their regional goals.”

Moreover he noted that Israel is very reluctant to negotiate with Hamas, because of their historical backgrounds.

He said that Israel sees Hamas as terrorist organizations while they see Hezbollah as both a political and a militant actor. “So these two distinctions influence Israel’s calculus,” he stated.

He asserted that this perception caused Israel to offer Hezbollah the chance to negotiate through Lebanese government officials.

“In contrast, a deal with Hamas could be seen as Israel legitimizing the group and that will potentially weaken Israel’s standing domestically and internationally.