The diplomatic efforts that transitioned Lebanon from a state of crisis to a ceasefire

The ceasefire agreement that brought an end to a continuous series of Israeli airstrikes and ushered Lebanon into a fragile peace was the result of weeks of negotiations, remaining uncertain until the very last moments.

U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein made multiple trips between Beirut and Jerusalem, navigating the complexities of a domestic election to finalize a deal that also required assistance from France and was nearly jeopardized by international arrest warrants issued for Israeli leaders.

Last month, Israel indicated that it had accomplished its primary objectives in Lebanon by delivering significant setbacks to Iran-backed Hezbollah, yet a formal truce was still not in sight.

A combination of a football match, intense diplomatic efforts, and U.S. pressure ultimately facilitated the agreement on Tuesday night, according to officials and diplomats.

For 14 months, Israel and Hezbollah, longstanding adversaries, have been engaged in conflict since the Lebanese group began launching rockets at Israeli military positions in support of Hamas.

The situation escalated over the summer, drawing in Hezbollah’s principal ally, Iran, and raising the risk of a regional conflict, as Israel shifted its military focus from the devastated areas of Gaza to the challenging terrain along the Lebanese border.

In September, Israel intensified its military operations with a surprise attack and targeted airstrikes that resulted in the deaths of Hezbollah’s leader and numerous members of its command. Tanks crossed the border late on September 30.

In October, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that there was “a window” for a potential agreement, as more than a million Lebanese were displaced and southern Lebanon lay in devastation, according to a senior U.S. administration official.

While some factions in Israel aimed for a decisive victory and the establishment of an uninhabited buffer zone in Lebanon, the nation was grappling with the challenges of a two-front conflict, which had necessitated many individuals to leave their civilian jobs to serve as reservists.

DIPLOMACY

“A sense often emerges when negotiations reach a critical point, where the parties are not only close to an agreement but also possess the will and desire to move forward, with circumstances favoring a resolution,” the senior U.S. administration official remarked during a briefing.

Officials from the governments of Israel, Lebanon, France, and the U.S. who provided insights to Reuters on the formation of the agreement requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the discussions. Hezbollah did not respond promptly to inquiries regarding the negotiation process.

In Lebanon, while Hezbollah continued its military efforts, it faced significant pressure and showed a willingness to consider a ceasefire that was no longer contingent on a truce in Gaza, effectively retracting an earlier demand made during the conflict.

Earlier in October, the Shi’ite group had backed veteran Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a long-time ally, to spearhead the negotiations. With U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein facilitating discussions between the nations and engaging with Israeli negotiators led by Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, daily updates were provided to U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, with France also playing a role in the negotiations.

Paris had been collaborating with Hochstein on an unsuccessful effort to establish a truce in September and continued to engage alongside U.S. initiatives.

Lebanese officials expressed to the U.S. their lack of trust in both Washington and Netanyahu, as noted by two European diplomats. France had increasingly criticized Israel’s military actions, and Lebanese officials viewed it as a counterbalance in negotiations with the U.S., according to a Western diplomat.

In early November, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot visited the region at Israel’s request, despite existing tensions between the two nations. He engaged in extensive discussions with Dermer regarding the logistics of a ceasefire, focusing on a phased approach to troop redeployments, with both delegations examining maps, as reported by two sources familiar with the discussions.

As conditions deteriorated for Lebanon, there was growing frustration over the slow progress of negotiations. A Lebanese official remarked, “(Hochstein) indicated he needed 10 days to achieve a ceasefire, but the Israelis prolonged it to a month to complete their military operations.”

VIOLATIONS

The proposed agreement was to be founded on improved adherence to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which concluded the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Both parties raised concerns about ongoing violations of this resolution and sought guarantees.

A key point of contention was Israel’s demand for the ability to retaliate if Hezbollah breached Resolution 1701, which Lebanon found unacceptable. Ultimately, Israel and the U.S. reached a side agreement—verbal assurances, according to a Western diplomat—that would allow Israel to respond to perceived threats.

A European diplomat stated, “Both parties retain their right to self-defense, but our aim is to prevent them from having to exercise that right.”

OBSTACLES

Israel expressed concerns regarding the supply of weapons to Hezbollah via Syria. According to three diplomatic sources, Israel communicated with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad through intermediaries to halt these supplies. Additionally, Israel intensified its airstrikes in Syria, particularly near Russian forces in Latakia province, which hosts a significant port, as a means of reinforcing this message.

A senior Western diplomat remarked, “Israel is in a position to largely dictate the terms. Hezbollah is significantly weakened and is more in need of a ceasefire than Israel. This situation is not concluding due to American diplomatic efforts, but rather because Israel believes it has accomplished its objectives.”

As the U.S. presidential election on November 5 approached, negotiations gained momentum and reached a critical juncture following Donald Trump’s victory. U.S. mediators informed the Trump administration that the proposed agreement would benefit Israel, Lebanon, and U.S. national security, according to a senior official from the U.S. administration.

A potential new challenge to Paris’s pivotal role in the negotiations arose when an Israeli soccer team traveled to France after violence erupted involving Israeli fans in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, French authorities managed to prevent any incidents, and French President Emmanuel Macron was seen sitting alongside the Israeli ambassador at the stadium. A source familiar with the situation noted, “The match was so uneventful that the two spent an hour discussing ways to ease tensions between the two allies and progress forward.”

At a critical juncture, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

According to three sources, Netanyahu warned that he would exclude France from any agreements if Paris adhered to its obligations under the Rome Statute to arrest him during a visit. This stance could jeopardize the Lebanese agreement regarding the ceasefire.

U.S. President Joe Biden contacted Macron, who subsequently reached out to Netanyahu before Biden and Macron had another discussion, as reported by a U.S. official. The Elysee ultimately released a statement acknowledging the ICC’s authority while avoiding any mention of arrest threats.

Over the weekend, U.S. officials intensified their pressure on Israel, with Hochstein cautioning that if a deal was not finalized within days, he would withdraw from mediation efforts, according to two Israeli officials.

By Tuesday, a resolution was achieved, and by Wednesday, the airstrikes ceased.