This perspective views the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah as a critical move to de-escalate tensions and restore a semblance of normalcy to the region. Proponents argue that the agreement, brokered by international actors like the U.S. and France, provides a framework for reducing violence and rebuilding displaced communities. Despite violations and slow implementation, this perspective emphasizes the potential for the ceasefire to pave the way for long-term peace if both sides adhere to their commitments.

From this perspective, the ceasefire is seen as a tenuous agreement unlikely to hold under current conditions. Critics highlight the continued military actions by both sides, such as Israeli airstrikes and accusations of Hezbollah regrouping, as evidence of its fragility. This view underscores the challenges posed by mutual distrust and the vague terms of the agreement, which may lead to its collapse if violations persist.

This perspective interprets the ceasefire as disproportionately benefiting Israel while leaving Hezbollah and Lebanon in a weakened state. It argues that Israel’s slow withdrawal and continued military actions in southern Lebanon undermine the spirit of the agreement and reinforce an unequal dynamic. Supporters of this view believe that Lebanon’s sovereignty and stability are being compromised, with international mediators failing to hold Israel accountable for alleged violations.