A small convoy of motorcycles paraded through the southern suburbs of Beirut in early December, its riders blasting ‘resistance’ songs and proudly displaying Hezbollah flags as they drove through the traffic-filled streets.
The demonstration came in the wake of Lebanon appointing Simon Karam as the head of a civilian delegation to the ceasefire committee between Lebanon and Israel. It was later reported that Lebanon and Israel held direct negotiations, the first in decades.
The ceasefire committee, better known as the “mechanism,” has been a point of contention in Lebanon since it was established in the wake of the 27 November 2024 ceasefire following a devastating, nearly two-month full-scale war between Hezbollah and Israel.
Since then, the committee has been in place to ensure that another conflict does not break out and to resolve outstanding issues between the two countries. However, it has largely fallen short of its stated goals.
“It is far from perfect, with Israel continuing to occupy Lebanese land and to conduct airstrikes, while Hezbollah clings on to its weapons,” Firas Maksad, the managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at Eurasia Group, told The New Arab.
What is the ceasefire mechanism?
The mechanism is an expanded version of a system that was put in place following the end of another war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006. At the time, it was only a tripartite group consisting of Lebanon, Israel, and UNIFIL as a way to ensure the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701.
In the wake of the full-scale war in 2024, though, the members of this committee were broadened to include France and the United States, the states that helped broker the latest ceasefire agreement.
In its essence, the committee was meant to coordinate between the Lebanese and Israeli militaries and ensure that UN resolutions concerning Lebanon are implemented and to monitor their progress.
However, what the mechanism can do is ill-defined, making it unclear if it can even take any real action to ensure that the ceasefire is being respected.
While the mechanism is primarily for military coordination, civilian representatives were announced at the start of December, further expanding what it was originally intended to do.
“We’re breaking from what was in place after the war in 2006 - which was primarily a military committee - to discuss implementation on the ground of the agreement,” Michael Young, a senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center, told The New Arab.
“Now, we have something that potentially can be expanded through this use of civilians in the mechanism itself.”
Both Lebanon and Israel have their own reasons for widening the scope of the mechanism, though much of the reason for its expansion in the first place is due to Israeli and American pressure on Lebanon, with much of Israel’s ability to force Lebanon into this position stemming from the ambiguity of the mechanism’s role.
“If you look at UN Resolution 1701, it covers more than just disarming Hezbollah,” Young explained.
“We’re talking about security on the border. We’re talking about things that may seem very general when you read them, but they open the door in directions that can be exploited if you want to exploit the wording.”
A push towards normalisation
Israel has long stated that its conflict is solely with Hezbollah and has nothing to do with the Lebanese people.
Even during the conflict in 2024, while Israeli jets were relentlessly pounding Lebanon and Israeli troops crossed into the south, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made overtures to the Lebanese people, posting a video on social media where he urged Lebanon to “take back its country” from Hezbollah so that Lebanon and Israel could “live together in peace”.
Israel wants to normalise relations with Lebanon, and it sees no better opportunity to do so than with US President Donald Trump in office, who is seeking to expand on the Abraham Accords announced during his first term in office.
Therefore, the mechanism has proven to be the best place to incrementally push for these discussions.
“[The Americans] are trying to force Lebanon into normalisation with Israel. That’s what they’ve been trying to do from the very beginning. Their reading is that Hezbollah has been weakened and cannot prevent the Lebanese government from normalising with Israel,” Young stated.
A way that Israel has forced Lebanon into expanded talks has been through the threat of another war. The recent conflict proved devastating to Lebanon, with Israel inflicting an estimated $14bn in damage.
Then, even as the ceasefire was being signed in November 2024, the Americans made a separate deal with Israel in which it gave Tel Aviv a “green light” to continue striking Lebanon if it failed to address any potential threats posed by Hezbollah.
Israel has utilised this American support to carry out near-daily attacks on Lebanon targeting Hezbollah infrastructure that it claims is being rebuilt, without providing any evidence, and to assassinate Hezbollah members.
Even as the Lebanese government agreed to disarm all non-state actors in the country, Israel has continued to carry out strikes, with the threat of a renewed war looming overhead. This has forced Lebanon into a position where if it does not agree to expanding talks, it could run the risk of renewed large-scale attacks.
The appointment of civilian negotiators was the latest concession made by Beirut.
“With Lebanon accepting to be represented by a civilian, the Trump administration can claim that yet another country is inching closer to normalising with Israel and, eventually, to joining the Abraham Accords,” Maksad said.
“An American green light for an impending Israeli offensive, therefore, becomes less likely. While Netanyahu is publicly welcoming Lebanon’s move, he is probably not amused by how it limits his freedom of action, for now at least.”
This has not prevented Israel from continuing to carry out bombings in Lebanon. After the civilian representatives met, Israel struck parts of south Lebanon, making it clear that these talks would be held under fire.
Lebanon is also aware of how controversial some of these topics are domestically, with officials ruling out normalisation and economic relations with Israel. By publicly making these statements, the government is hoping to stave off any civil strife as it continues to walk a fine line in talks.
When it comes to normalisation, the biggest opponent is Hezbollah, which remains armed, Maksad explained. Any normalisation with Israel is impossible while Hezbollah maintains its weapons, making it a distant prospect.
While Israel and the US are seeking to pressure Lebanon into expanded talks, Beirut, on the other hand, wants to keep the agenda narrow with a smaller set of demands.
Little room to manoeuvre
Lebanon is looking to use the mechanism to force Israel to withdraw from the five points it has been occupying since the end of the war and release Lebanese detainees.
The Salam government would also like to demarcate the borders between Lebanon and Israel so that Hezbollah would lose its excuse to remain armed.
Israel, though, has refused to negotiate on these issues without getting something in return, namely, Hezbollah’s complete disarmament throughout the entirety of the country.
“The Lebanese have very little margin of manoeuvre to avoid conflict. Very little. They’re going to bend to a lot of the conditions that the Americans and the Israelis are going to impose on them,” Young stated.
Lebanon also has little backing from other Arab nations since most of them would also like to see Hezbollah disarmed.
Withdrawing from the mechanism is also not an option for Lebanon, as it would allow Israel to argue that diplomacy has once again failed and that the only way to disarm Hezbollah is through military force.
This would mean another catastrophic conflict that could see renewed mass displacement and infrastructure turned to rubble.
Lebanon’s only option is to ensure that its red lines are not crossed. This includes residents of the border villages being unable to return to their homes, something Israel has previously floated to create a buffer zone between the two countries.
Beirut’s position was confirmed by Karam on 9 December when he stated that Lebanon would not agree to anything that would prevent the residents of border villages from returning and that this was the condition for Lebanon establishing an economic zone in the border region.
“This is something that is very difficult for them to accept,” Young said. “That’s why it’s going to be a tough negotiation, and the Israelis may escalate the violence to push the Lebanese into the Israelis’ preferred positions on this.”
Nicholas Frakes is a journalist and photojournalist based in Lebanon, reporting on the Middle East
Follow him on X: @nicfrakesjourno