Talk:2024 Israel–Lebanon ceasefire agreement

Page Title

Shouldn't the title of this page be Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire agreement? The deal is between Israel and Hezbollah, pretty sure its not with the Lebanese military as the current title could infer Schwinnspeed (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Schwinnspeed This isn't true I'm afraid. The deal is actually between Israel and Lebanon. Not Hezbollah. Hezbollah was just an observer to the treaty. Their support is assumed to be unofficial. Quoting from here: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/11/26/world/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-cease-fire?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

"The cease-fire is officially an agreement among Israel, Lebanon and mediating countries including the United States. Nabih Berri, the speaker of Lebanon’s Parliament, has been acting as a liaison with Hezbollah, and any deal was expected to include the group’s unofficial approval." Genabab (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether it is an agreement negotiated between Lebanon and Israel or Hezbollah and Israel is somewhat unclear.

As far as I can see, most media outlets call it an agreement between Israel and Hezbollah. There has also been no real armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Hezbollah operates autonomous of the Lebanese Government, and the Lebanese Armed Forces (and UNIFIL) have not been able to enforce UN Security Resolution 1701 (which is supposed to prevent and stop attacks between Hezbollah and Israel). When Israel invaded southern Lebanon, the Lebanese defense forces withdrew to the north.

It is also completely unthinkable that Israel and Lebanon could reach an agreement that includes Hezbollah operations without Hezbollah also agreeing to this agreement. Hezbollah is a powerful faction in Lebanon. Even after this war. The Lebanese Government (and their armed forces) are not strong enough to enforce such a deal if Hezbollah doesnt also agree.

My opinion is that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schwinnspeed is absolutely right. This is a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah. They are the warring parties. Therefore it's natural that the ceasefire-deal also stands between them. Laddmeister (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

> It is also completely unthinkable that Israel and Lebanon could reach an agreement that includes Hezbollah operations without Hezbollah also agreeing to this agreement.

I understand that of course, but this is what reliable sources seem to say. @Laddmeister

https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-hezbollah-ceasefire-deal-gaza-war-11-26-24-intl-hnk/index.html

"Though the 60-day ceasefire agreed by Israel and Lebanon stipulates that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) must withdraw completely from southern Lebanon, the return of the troops to Israel will not take place immediately."

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2024/11/26/lebanon-israel-lebanon-airstrikes/7561732633521

"After many weeks of tireless diplomacy, Israel and Lebanon have accepted a cessation of hostilities [...] Although Biden and Macron say the cease-fire is between Israel and Lebanon, Hezbollah, which is a designated foreign terrorist organization, is the organization against whom Israel declared war."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/11/26/world/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-cease-fire?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

"The cease-fire is officially an agreement among Israel, Lebanon and mediating countries including the United States. Nabih Berri, the speaker of Lebanon’s Parliament, has been acting as a liaison with Hezbollah, and any deal was expected to include the group’s unofficial approval."

Even still, you are right to point out that most sources call it Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire. But the page should still be edited in some way to make this nuance apparent Genabab (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, but as long as the conflict stands between Israel and Hezbollah, not Israel and Lebanon (official), that's what the headline should be. While you might be technically right, an "Israel-Lebanon ceasefire" might easily be misinterpreted as if the conflict was between two state actors. Which it wasnt. (Though with Hezbollah's semi-integrated position in the lebanese society and government, that might also be a discussion to have.)

I see your point, but to avoid confusion, it should be Israel-Hezbollah. Laddmeister (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The first source in this article calls it the israel-hezbollah ceasefire. Title should be corrected. Laddmeister (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2024/11/27/lebanon-cease-fire-begins/3361732695775 Laddmeister (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Second source as well

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-lebanon-hezbollah-ceasefire-3ed296f8317ecaa89c4e3548c75c9602 Laddmeister (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Israel and Lebanon have agreed to the terms of a ceasefire agreement to end the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, a senior U.S. official told Axios on Monday."[1]

"Hezbollah, which did not participate in any direct talks on the ceasefire – with Berri mediating on the group’s behalf ..."[2].

"The EU welcomes the announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon and commends the mediation efforts undertaken by France and the United States which have allowed it.[3]VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What’s your point? Im not saying Lebanon didnt negotiate on behalf of Hezbollah. They certainly did. But the cease fire isnt between Israel and Lebanon. Israel and Lebanon wasnt at war so there would be no need for a Lebanon-Israeli ceasefire. The ceasefire isnt between to stop fighting between Hezbollah and Israel. Thats why these media sources call it the Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire. Laddmeister (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the agreement was negotiated and signed by the Lebanese government, it very much makes that government a party to it. Of course, I don't deny that Hezbollah is also a party. Also "Lebanon" should cover Hezbollah, as Hezbollah is officially a part of the Lebanese government. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point, and technically you are right. I still think the title is somewhat misleading. It reads as if there is an armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon, and that they have stopped fighting now. If that was true, then Hezbollah would still be able to keep fighting Israel, since they're not a part of the deal. It is, as we know, Israel and Hezbollah that are in armed conflict, and a title that reflected that, despite Lebanon being the one who negotiate on behalf of Hezbollah, would in my opinion be better.

For example, let's say that Israel and PLO negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza. Hamas refuses to sit down with Israel, but will abide by what theyr proxy PLO agrees to. Would you call it a PLO-Israel ceasefire? Even if Israel and PLO are not in active conflict? I think some people would shake their heads at that.

I might be wrong and I'll try to be humble about it if I am. If the consensus here is that the title is just fine, I'll leave it be. I have no problem with that. Laddmeister (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say that despite Hezbollah being a "part" of the lebanese government, they're not acting in southern lebanon on behalf of this coalition government. Hezbollahs operations there are autonomous. That's also why the Lebanese armed forces pulled out when IDF warned that they would invade. Laddmeister (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I was going to come here and ask why it isnt Israel-Hezbollah, but now I am not so sure. This is a really odd situation as the ceasefire was negotiated by Lebanon, but Lebanon wasnt even participating. The sources seem to refer to it as a Israel-Hez ceasefire, however. Metallurgist (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding: theres precedent with 1996 Israeli–Lebanese Ceasefire Understanding, also negotiated by Lebanon but applying to Hez. Other examples in Category:Ceasefires seem to focus on the location, so "2024 South(ern) Lebanon ceasefire agreement" might work better. Metallurgist (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer if it the title was replaced with Hezbollha-Israel, but that's no big deal. I won't nag about it. And while I think you have a good point, this war wasnt exclusive to Southern Lebanon. Just the invasion. The cease-fire covers all hostilities, if I understood this correctly. IDF has been bombing Hezbollah facilities all over Lebanon. Also in Beirut. So Southern Lebanon might not be entirely correct either. Laddmeister (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

The claim that IDF forces opened fire on returning civilians is not supported by the linked source. The closest I can see is that there were warning shots fired. Please rephrase this 2601:645:8200:1C60:45BD:E3AE:70A8:F826 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chomik! (talk?) 19:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The article still reads: “The IDF […] shot several people in Mais al-Jabal”… 86.31.178.164 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

And that is what happened according to the cited source. "Several suspects were hit by fire in Meiss al-Jabal, according to the IDF, which said it had shifted from active fighting in Lebanon to focusing on enforcing the agreement." Chomik! (talk?) 03:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Add Hezbollah as a Party

Add Hezbollah as a party to the ceasefire agreement, otherwise who is the ceasefire even about? Must reflect the title. 74.71.4.108 (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hezbollah is not an actual party to the agreement. The title is that way as this is what sources are calling it. But the actual agreement is between Israel and Lebanon Genabab (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Genabab can you provide sources that say Hezbollah is not a party? I know they didn't directly took part in negotiations. Who signed it from the Lebanese side? Was it Mikati and Berri? Berri is the leader of Amal, no? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent I provided some sources above that say this. I will copy paste them here:

https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-hezbollah-ceasefire-deal-gaza-war-11-26-24-intl-hnk/index.html

"Though the 60-day ceasefire agreed by Israel and Lebanon stipulates that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) must withdraw completely from southern Lebanon, the return of the troops to Israel will not take place immediately."

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2024/11/26/lebanon-israel-lebanon-airstrikes/7561732633521

"After many weeks of tireless diplomacy, Israel and Lebanon have accepted a cessation of hostilities [...] Although Biden and Macron say the cease-fire is between Israel and Lebanon, Hezbollah, which is a designated foreign terrorist organization, is the organization against whom Israel declared war."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/11/26/world/israel-hezbollah-lebanon-cease-fire?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

"The cease-fire is officially an agreement among Israel, Lebanon and mediating countries including the United States. Nabih Berri, the speaker of Lebanon’s Parliament, has been acting as a liaison with Hezbollah, and any deal was expected to include the group’s unofficial approval." Genabab (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Genabab that's fair. Laddmeister can you provide sources which explicitly say Hezbollah is a party to the deal? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/27/displaced-return-to-southern-lebanon-amid-uneasy-ceasefire

"Thousands of people displaced from war-torn southern Lebanon have begun returning home after a ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah took effect on Wednesday, amid fears on both sides of the border about whether the truce would hold."

"Hezbollah, which participates in Lebanon’s political system but is considered a terrorist organisation by many western states, participated in the talks for the truce via mediators but has not formally commented on the ceasefire." Laddmeister (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Full text?

Can we add some references which include the full text of the document? At the current there's just the 14 point summary (itself interesting, the actual text in sources I can find has 13 points) & the references to those 14 points are Israeli media in Hebrew. Google is returning some results with media citing an English version of what's supposedly the full deal: [4] [5] Slovborg (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

Add the below lines with ref. in Reactions section :

Pakistan : Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Thursday welcomed the ceasefire announcement between Israel and the Hezbollah group, hoping it would culminate in a permanent cessation of hostilities between the two sides.[6] Swimear (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Done.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent Thank You Swimear (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

When was the effective time?

The agreement part of article said “if no escalations or breaches of the agreement occur by 10 a.m. local time on November 27, 2024, the ceasefire agreement will go into effect.” but infobox said it was 02:00 GMT, which was 04:00 local time. Which one is correct? Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Correction of Date

I don't have permissions to edit this topic so I thought I'd discuss this here. This article states that the Israeli Security Cabinet approved the agreement by a vote of 10-1 on 27 November, but the source given states that "Announcing the ceasefire, U.S. President Joe Biden spoke at the White House on Tuesday shortly after Israel's security cabinet approved the agreement in a 10-1 vote." The "tuesday" being mentioned here can be at most recently 26 November, since the article was published on 27 November. Because the source claims that the US spoke after the agreement was approved, and they spoke on Tuesday, then the source does not agree that the Israeli Security Cabinet voted on 27 November as the article states. Remedying this probably requires either a correction of date on this article, or a new/additional source confirming the date of the vote. Thanks! <3 Friendlyuser87 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It should be further noted that the source given for the cabinet vote does not specify the date that the vote occured. Friendlyuser87 (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Times of Israel reported on the cabinet vote on 26 November Chomik! (talk?) 18:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Friendlyuser87 (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

One-sided analysis

I shifted the worst part of the one-sided analysis sitting at the end of the lead to a new section, Analysis, but probably the rest of the paragraph should be shifted there too. This is currently mostly just a pro-Israel point of view (trustable Israelis vs untrustable Lebanese) and should be balanced by sources presenting the Lebanese point of view (both Hezbollah and non-Hezbollah) - the nature of almost any ceasefire in a two-sided war is that there are concerns that either side will violate the ceasefire or rearm (or fail to disarm). It may be a bit harder to find the Lebanese points of view, but it shouldn't be that hard. There are likely several parameters in the peace and armed conflict dynamical system that can affect the ceasefire parameter - distrust of the various Lebanese armed forces, distrust of the Israeli armed forces, presence of peacekeepers, buildup of levels of trust for particular actions, individuals or groups, but these sentences currently cover very little of the overall system.

I don't want to intervene too much (and we have to be careful of what falls under the 1R/24h guideline), so I suggest that someone else shifts the rest of the paragraph to the Analysis section. Boud (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I've moved it further into the reactions section, but it probably doesn't contribute much to the article anyway.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Minor incorrect wording

The following paragraph is somewhat problematic:

"The 2006 Lebanon war ended with UN Resolution 1701, which called for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, and for Hezbollah to disarm. However, it was violated by both sides, as Hezbollah continued to accumulate arms and the Israeli military continued to enter Lebanese territory even in the absence of any hostilities. The Lebanese army is weakened by economic crisis and insufficient resources and there are concerns over potential failure to enforce the terms of the ceasefire."

So, if you access the source for this paragraph (AP article) you'll see that the wording in the article is somewhat different:

"For years, Lebanon and Israel blamed each other for countless violations along the tense frontier. Israel said Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force and growing arsenal remained, and accused the group of using a local environmental organization to spy on troops. Lebanon complained about Israeli military jets and naval ships entering Lebanese territory even when there was no active conflict."

What is correct? Both Israel and Lebanon are accusing the other side of breaking the deal. It is not clear if this is actually true. The article only mentions that the two sides are presenting claim, but in the Wiki-article it's presented as a fact. That's a mistake.

So, while Lebanon might be correct in their accusations about Israel of "entering Lebanese territory even in the absence of any hostilites", the claim is not a backed up as a fact in this article. It's simply a claim by the Lebanese government. The same goes for Israels claim that Hezbollah has began rearming in Southern Lebanon. While this is well known today, it's not clear that this was the case back then.

Also if you read the AP-article the "Israel entering Lebanese territory" is about the maritime territory, not Lebanese land. The 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel was primarily fought on land, and the way it's written it's easy to asume that theyre talking about IDF entering lebanese land territory. The wording here should be more precise.

Looking forward to comments on this. If I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll leave it be. If I'm right I hope some user with the correct permissions can correct this paragraph. Laddmeister (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Laddmeister Israeli military entering Lebanon at will is a well-known fact, as is the fact that Hezbollah re-armed. In fact, Israeli media even published photos of their airforce flying over Beirut[7].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

There is a typo in the Middle East section of the Reactions portion of the page. Change "Fforeign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghael" to "Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghael". Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Already done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Under #First Violation, Sputnik should link to Sputnik (news agency) instead.

TPI81AF (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

First violation nonsense

"Hezbollah operatives reportedly entered the town of Kfar Kila, which is only a few kilometers from the border," including a local commander. Conflicting reports also arose on whether the four were arrested or driven away. In the same incident, Israeli artillery fired 5 shells towards the Fatima border gate near Khiyam"

Kfar Kila is located right on the border with Israel, and spreads up to 2KM away from it. It isn't "only a few kilometers from the border", as there is zero distance between it and the border. Understanding that it's information taken straight from the Allisrael source, it still seems like wrong information once checked against a map. The Fatima border gate is also located in Kfar Kila. There is no apparent purpose in mentioning that it's "near Khiyam", which is about 5km away. 84.94.4.14 (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)