As the world focuses on post-Assad Syria, this article reflects on Lebanon after the “ceasefire”. A country with a history of resistance and struggle, Lebanon has once again shown the world what it means to confront genocide with dignity and action. For months, it has lost people, homes, and entire villages, all for the principle of resistance against a genocidal project backed by the West.
COMMENTARY: By Rami Rmeileh
The ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah paused 416 days of relentless warfare in Lebanon. For thousands of displaced Lebanese and Palestinians, this marked the beginning of a return to homes and lands scarred by destruction.
For many, this journey also represented sumud (steadfastness) in the face of a killing machine. It meant the endurance is itself a victory.
However, the war has profoundly altered Lebanon. Since October 8, there has been relentless violence, mass displacement, and an economic crisis exacerbated by the conflict. And, while the physical destruction may have paused, a psychological war — one long mastered by Israel — continues.
This war extends far beyond bullets, embedding itself in propaganda, disinformation, and efforts to manipulate Lebanon’s social fabric.
Exploiting divisions
Israel’s psychological warfare has been relentless, leveraging figures like Avichay Adraee, the Arabic spokesperson for the Israeli army, and a network of Hasbara operatives who weaponise social media. Their aim: to sow division and undermine Hezbollah’s credibility.
In past conflicts, leaflets were dropped from the sky with warnings of evacuation.
During the latest war, social media became the primary battlefield. These platforms provided Israel with direct communication channels to Lebanese audiences, spreading disinformation and inciting hatred towards Hezbollah in particular.
Adraee’s online presence grew into a central tool of influence. Through direct messaging, incendiary posts, and the targeting of Lebanese media outlets, he has sought to stoke divisions by blaming Hezbollah for Lebanon’s economic collapse and the war, and to turn public opinion against the resistance.
By exploiting Lebanon’s lingering civil war divisions, Israel aims to ignite internal strife, reducing its need for direct military involvement amidst an already weary army.
These practices are nothing new for Israel, however. One only has to look back at Lebanon’s history to be reminded of this. From the PLO’s expulsion in 1982, to the internal strife following the 2006 war, factions have often been weaponised against each other.
It is within this context that Israel’s planned withdrawal over the next 60 days should be understood. It is not a concession, but a recalibration. It is buying time to address its internal challenges while amplifying its propaganda in Lebanon.
When Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon, many residents started returning home to see what was left of their villages and homes.
Al Jazeera’s @alihashem_tv reflects on the lasting scars of this war and Lebanon’s uncertain future. pic.twitter.com/VNBZQWxOO6
— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) December 11, 2024
Foreign interests
As Lebanon begins to rebuild, Gulf states and other foreign actors will likely attempt to shape its future through aid, investments, and political manoeuvring, further deepening the country’s dependence and vulnerabilities. These will likely lay the groundwork for what Netanyahu refers to as the “New Middle East.”
We should be under no illusion that the ceasefire reflects a broader strategy of proxy conflict. For Washington, Israel is a regional enforcer, minimising direct military entanglement or presence in Lebanon.
Additionally, it serves Trump’s economic agenda, where stability is viewed as a prerequisite for profit.
For Israel, the ceasefire provides additional time and military resources to intensify its attacks in Gaza, aimed at forcing Hamas and Palestinians into submission, or securing a hostage deal — a strategy that, even more than a year into this genocide, has proven futile.
For Hezbollah, this ceasefire marks a period to recalibrate its political agenda and draw lessons from recent events, including the necessity of returning to clandestine presence, not just militarily, but also socially and economically.
Under the terms of the ceasefire, Hezbollah is expected to withdraw to the North of the Litani River and cease all visible military activity in the region.
However, its military presence in southern Lebanon has historically been subterranean, operating discreetly through an extensive underground network. This raises significant doubts about whether Israel, the US, or other brokers involved in the agreement can meaningfully enforce UN Resolution 1701 or curtail Hezbollah’s capacity to regroup and continue its resistance activities.
Hezbollah’s vulnerabilities
Despite the significant losses Israel has faced, the ongoing war has exposed vulnerabilities within Hezbollah, ranging from the infiltration of its ranks to the loss of key leaders and breaches in cyber and technological security. These challenges have sparked internal and external critiques, questioning their overall preparedness and strategic direction.
The attacks on senior commanders and leaders since last October — including the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, and the pager blasts — have revealed that a full-scale offensive on Hezbollah was imminent and years in the making.
If not for Israel’s current multi-front battle, the reality could have been far graver for Hezbollah.
Nevertheless, speculating on alternative strategies or hypothetical outcomes serves little purpose without acknowledging the complexities of Hezbollah’s structure and context. The movement is neither monolithic nor homogenous, and it certainly isn’t immune to power struggles.
Its cadres, institutions, and members are subject to the same internal tensions, critiques, and demands that have shaped its trajectory — and perhaps even contributed to vulnerabilities that led to possible infiltrations.
These internal dynamics, combined with external pressures, underscore the challenges of Hezbollah balancing its political and militant roles.
Indeed, the ceasefire marks the beginning of a critical period for Hezbollah during which it will need to tighten security, and rebuild its ranks which will undoubtedly be a long process.
The absence of key leaders, particularly from its military and resistance wings, coupled with the continued prominence of its political arm, will significantly influence Hezbollah’s future trajectory. These developments could potentially even exacerbate existing tensions which could lead to internal fragmentation, or possibly even the emergence of a new party.
How Hezbollah reshapes itself in the aftermath of the ceasefire will not only determine its survival and direction, but it will also heavily impact the geopolitical landscape of the region for years to come.
What about progressives?
While leftist movements in Lebanon have historically supported Hezbollah’s resistance to Israel, they have also been critical of its religious leanings and political positions. But, following the weeks of bombardment, the current political and military landscape has created space for leftist groups to reclaim and reimagine their role beyond symbolic expressions of solidarity, namely on social media.
In recent years those on the left had confined their activism to public declarations of support for resistance in Gaza and Lebanon, convincing themselves that their actions were revolutionary acts — largely because of the repression of such views by the West.
However, this was not always the case. In cities like Beirut, the left played a significant role on the ground when it came to past struggles for liberation from imperialism and colonialism.
This tradition must now be reawakened.
Beirut remains a vital home for leftist movements, and is now more than ever in dire need of their presence, of people organising and taking action amidst the political and ideological vacuum that currently exists.
Vacancies in power — particularly in Lebanon’s fragile and polarised context — are perilous if left unaddressed. Leftist groups that are anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, and committed to a secular and socialist state now have a rare opening to build a credible alternative. Acting while the political wound is still fresh may allow them to mobilise and influence the future trajectory of the country’s resistance and governance.
After all, the paths to liberation paved by revolutionaries like George Habash, Ghassan Kanafani, and many others in the 1970s are yet to be realised.
Remaining vigilant
Lebanon, a country with a history of resistance and struggle, has once again shown the world what it means to confront genocide with dignity and action. For months, it has lost people, homes, and entire villages, all for the principle of resistance against a genocidal project backed by the West.
Yet, the ceasefire offers only temporary relief. For Lebanon, the path forward demands vigilance against external manipulation, solidarity across internal divisions, and the resilience to rebuild amidst adversity.
Victory for resistance movements is not a singular moment of triumph but the ability to endure, adapt, and persist. For Lebanon and its resistance, this struggle is one round in a long fight against colonial violence and imperial domination.
Images of Lebanese returning to their homes fuel our imagination and belief that return is possible — for Gazans to their homes, and for Palestinians to their ancestral land.
Rami Rmeileh is a social psychologist and a doctoral researcher at the University of Exeter — Institute of Arab and Islamic studies. Follow him on X: @RamiRmeileh This article was first published by The New Arab.
