How Many Crimes Are Committed in the Name of a “Ceasefire”?

If we want to understand the new meaning of what is called a “ceasefire” or a “cessation of hostilities,” we need only look at what is happening in Lebanon and Gaza.

A Lebanese military delegation is currently meeting with an Israeli delegation in Washington. Lebanon’s primary objective is to preserve the ceasefire that has been in place since last April. Yet the reality tells a different story. Since the agreement was reached, Israel has not confined its military actions to southern Lebanon; it has resumed airstrikes on Beirut, expanded evacuation orders beyond southern villages to major cities such as Nabatieh, and continued targeting Hezbollah military commanders. Despite all this, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam continues to affirm his government's commitment to maintaining the ceasefire.

The situation in Gaza is remarkably similar. Officially, a ceasefire has been in effect since October of last year. Yet in recent days alone, Israel has reportedly killed two Hamas military commanders. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that Israeli forces now control 60 percent of the Gaza Strip and have been ordered to expand that control to 70 percent. Nevertheless, the international community continues to behave as though a ceasefire remains in place and that what is occurring amounts merely to “violations” rather than the collapse of the agreement itself.

When Israel struck Beirut two days ago, it stated that the operation had been coordinated with the United States, the principal guarantor of both the ceasefire agreement and the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations. Washington continues to provide Israel with the political and military cover necessary to violate ceasefire arrangements. The American-Israeli partnership is never short of justifications: Hamas or Hezbollah violated the agreement; what we are doing is preemptive self-defense.

Ceasefire agreements have increasingly become tools for managing conflicts in the media and promoting the narrative that Washington and Tel Aviv are pursuing peace. The real objective is often to buy time and reduce international pressure and criticism.

Ironically, many ceasefire agreements are deliberately drafted with loopholes that allow Israel in Lebanon and Gaza—and the United States in relation to Iran—to continue military operations under different labels, most notably the doctrine of self-defense. Hamas and the Lebanese government are effectively compelled to accept ceasefires that are legally flawed and fundamentally unfair, yet the balance of power leaves them with few alternatives.

Such agreements no longer possess the legal or political sanctity they once enjoyed. They have become subject to calculations of power and interest rather than binding principles and international law. Ceasefires remain in force only so long as they serve the interests of the stronger party. Once that party concludes that continuing the arrangement undermines its military objectives, violations follow, supported by increasingly unconvincing justifications. Whether the world believes those explanations has become largely irrelevant.

In the past, violating a ceasefire was considered an international offense capable of prompting action by the United Nations Security Council and consequences for the offending party. Today, ceasefire agreements have been transformed into tactical instruments employed by the stronger side for temporary advantage. Once their usefulness expires, military operations simply resume.

What is particularly striking is that Arab parties are fully aware of this reality. They witness the violations occurring daily, yet possess little ability to alter the situation. The Lebanese government has virtually no leverage. It cannot even postpone negotiations with Israel, let alone cancel them. It repeatedly states that its objective is to preserve a ceasefire that, in practical terms, no longer exists.

Hamas finds itself in a similar position. It warns that continued Israeli attacks will destroy the truce agreement, yet it has few tools beyond issuing such warnings.

How many crimes are committed in the name of a ceasefire? And how many victims fall because of it?

Originally published in Al Masry Al Youm.