US President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a 10-day ceasefire, which officially came into effect at midnight local time on the 17th. Both sides agreed that the pause would pave the way for future negotiations on a permanent security and peace arrangement, and that the ceasefire could be extended with mutual consent.
However, on the 17th, the Lebanese military immediately accused Israel of repeatedly violating the agreement after it took effect, claiming that Israeli forces carried out intermittent shelling on several villages in southern Lebanon. It described the actions as “a series of acts of aggression.” Lebanon has urged residents in the south to delay returning to affected areas due to safety concerns.
As of now, Israel has not issued an official response to the allegations.
Under the ceasefire framework, the US State Department said the Lebanese government is required to take measures to prevent Hezbollah and other non-state armed groups from carrying out any attacks or hostile actions against Israel. It also stated that the ceasefire is intended to create space for negotiations toward a longer-term peace settlement.
Commentary:
The ceasefire was originally intended to provide both sides with space to de-escalate and move toward further peace talks. However, alleged shelling of southern villages less than 24 hours after its implementation has quickly raised doubts over its credibility.
Even when agreements are reached through external mediation, ceasefires are difficult to sustain without effective monitoring mechanisms and a basic level of mutual trust. With Israel having continued military operations against Hezbollah during negotiations, underlying tensions remain unresolved, making it unlikely that a short-term ceasefire will translate into lasting stability.