Following calls from the US, EU, and 10 other nations for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, the White House quickly shifted into high gear, seeking to generate support for its proposed resolution.
During a late-night Zoom briefing, which was so crowded with journalists that some were turned away, senior officials from the Biden administration hailed the announcement as a significant “breakthrough.”
What they meant by this was that securing an agreement from key European and Arab countries, with Washington leading the charge, was considered a major diplomatic victory amidst the current violent escalation.
However, this was a call for a ceasefire by world powers—not an actual ceasefire.
The joint statement urged both Israel and Hezbollah to halt hostilities immediately, proposing a 21-day truce to allow time for further mediated talks. It also pushed for a diplomatic solution in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which was adopted to end the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war but was never fully implemented. Additionally, it addressed the stalled ceasefire agreement concerning Gaza.
Beyond the three-week truce, the plan included a series of ambitious regional objectives—many of which have eluded diplomats for nearly two decades.
The timing was strategic, as the Americans benefited from world leaders already being convened in New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly.
But what became apparent on the ground was that this “breakthrough” did not mean Israel and Hezbollah had agreed to anything concrete.
It appeared that US officials were presenting the situation as more advanced than it truly was, likely in an effort to generate public momentum and put pressure on both parties to engage with the plan.
Asked whether Israel and Hezbollah were onboard, one of the senior officials said: “I can share that we have had this conversation with the parties and felt this was the right moment based on the [ceasefire] call, based on our discussion – and they are familiar with the text… We’ll let them speak to their actions of accepting the deal in the coming hours.”
Pressed again on whether this meant Israel and Hezbollah had signed on – especially given the fact that the US does not have direct contact with Hezbollah – the official clarified that the US had talked intensively about the text with Israeli officials and with Lebanon’s government (meaning its officials would have contact with Hezbollah).
“Our expectation is when the government of Lebanon and when the government of Israel both accept this, this will carry and to be implemented as a ceasefire on both sides,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
That sounded pretty promising. But after the late-night call, the diplomats woke to news of more Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon, including in Beirut, and more Hezbollah rocket fire into Israel. This week has seen Lebanon’s bloodiest day since its civil war; Israeli airstrikes killed more than 600 people including 50 children, according to Lebanese health officials.
Can a new ceasefire proposal succeed this time?
So, how meaningful is the diplomatic effort, and can it truly lead to a ceasefire?
The initial indications are not promising. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boarded a flight to New York for his UN address on Friday, his office released a firm statement clarifying that Israel had not agreed to anything yet. Netanyahu also directed the Israeli military to press on with its operations “at full force.”
Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati also denied reports that he had signed off on the ceasefire plan, calling them “completely false.”
Instead, the joint statement serves as a foundation for the international community to apply pressure on both Israel and Hezbollah to halt the conflict.
More discussions will continue in New York throughout the week, and likely beyond.
What stands out is the use of the phrase “immediate ceasefire,” notably led by the US alongside France. Since October 7, the US had for months blocked UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, until President Biden’s unexpected shift in language.
Despite this shift, intense diplomatic efforts spearheaded by Washington have so far failed to broker a ceasefire or secure the release of hostages between Israel and Hamas, with the US attributing the stalemate to a lack of “political will” from both sides. Meanwhile, US arms support to Israel has continued.
This doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that Washington and its allies can now pressure Israel and Hezbollah into a swift truce. The ongoing ground battles, the intensity of Israel’s airstrikes, and last week’s deadly drone attacks on Hezbollah—while the group continues to fire rockets into Israel—make a quick ceasefire seem unlikely.
However, a key difference from the Gaza ceasefire negotiations is that the Israel-Lebanon agreement doesn’t involve hostage talks, a major factor contributing to the gridlock over Gaza.
But the stakes remain high for both sides. Israel seeks to return 60,000 displaced residents to the northern region and secure that area from Hezbollah’s relentless rocket fire from Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah wants to halt Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon, where over 90,000 people in the south have also been displaced. The Shia militant group is eager to maintain its dominant position in Lebanon and its presence in the south, all while managing the risk that last week’s violent events could stoke further internal resentment within Lebanon’s fragile sectarian divide.
Washington’s envoy to the Israel-Lebanon crisis, Amos Hochstein, has already struggled for months to broker any agreement between the two sides.
This is where the US-led push for an immediate truce faces added complications.
From what I understand of the negotiations leading to the joint statement, Washington insisted on linking the proposed 21-day ceasefire with creating space for negotiations on a longer-term resolution.
Specifically, the goal is to get both sides to commit to implementing UN Resolution 1701, which places multiple conditions on Israel and Hezbollah. These include Hezbollah’s withdrawal from areas south of the Litani River and, ultimately, its disarmament.
Since 2006, each side has accused the other of violating 1701, making it an unresolved issue for nearly two decades. Now, this long-term objective is being bundled into a short-term plan for calm.
With missiles still falling, current diplomatic efforts are facing enormous challenges.
Biden struggles to contain the crisis as Israel and Hezbollah edge closer to war.
