Ceasefire deal reshapes the balance: What Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah gained, and lost

Report by Nada Andraos, English adaptation by Yasmine Jaroudi

The joint Lebanese-Israeli statement has emerged as a pivotal document in the latest phase of efforts to end hostilities, with its implications extending far beyond a simple ceasefire. 

The agreement directly affects three principal parties—Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah—raising questions about who secured tangible gains and who emerged weakened by its terms.

For the Lebanese state, the agreement goes beyond the immediate objective of halting military operations. In addition to reaffirming the ceasefire, the statement highlights continued U.S. support for the Lebanese Army and efforts to strengthen its capacity to impose state authority across all Lebanese territory.

A central provision calls for the establishment of pilot zones in which the Lebanese Army would exercise exclusive control on the ground, with no role or presence for any entity outside the state's authority. The agreement also affirms that the future relationship between Lebanon and Israel should be determined solely by the two sovereign governments.

Lebanon secured explicit recognition of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, alongside Israeli assurances that it harbors no hostile intentions toward Lebanon and remains committed to continued negotiations to resolve outstanding disputes.

For its part, Israel obtained a ceasefire arrangement conditioned on a complete halt to Hezbollah's military activity and the withdrawal of the group's fighters from areas south of the Litani River.

The agreement also reinforces the principle of exclusive state authority in the pilot zones and includes commitments to dismantle armed groups operating outside state institutions and prevent their re-emergence. Israeli officials are likely to view these provisions as significant steps toward addressing long-standing security concerns along the border.

The statement further commits both sides to continuing direct negotiations on unresolved issues and outlines a framework in which lasting security is linked to the disarmament of Hezbollah and the dismantling of its military infrastructure.

Israel received assurances from Lebanon that there were no hostile intentions toward Israel and that direct negotiations would continue to address outstanding issues and reach a comprehensive agreement. It was also discussed that lasting security can only be achieved through the disarmament of Hezbollah and the dismantling of its military infrastructure.

However, for Hezbollah, the agreement appears to offer no direct political or military gains. The ceasefire is explicitly tied to a cessation of the group's military operations and the removal of its fighters from south of the Litani River.

The provisions establishing pilot zones under exclusive Lebanese Army control effectively exclude Hezbollah from any role in those areas. The agreement's emphasis on preventing the re-emergence of non-state armed groups and dismantling unauthorized military structures further increases pressure on the group.

The statement also appears to limit the role of external actors, including Iran, by stressing that any arrangement to end hostilities must be concluded directly between the Lebanese and Israeli governments under U.S. sponsorship rather than through alternative negotiating tracks.

Viewed through the lens of the agreement's provisions, Israel appears to have secured key security-related objectives, while the Lebanese state obtained commitments reinforcing sovereignty and the authority of its institutions. 

Meanwhile, Hezbollah and its regional ally Iran face a framework that places greater emphasis on state control and restricts the role of non-state armed actors in shaping Lebanon's security future.