The tenuous cease-fires in both Gaza and Lebanon seem poised to hold steady, at least for the immediate moment, despite testing moments over the weekend. Analysts agree that all parties appear motivated to avoid full-scale conflict, even if only to buy themselves a few weeks of relative calm. However, this fragile peace is riddled with complexities and contradictions, setting the stage for an uncertain future as political and strategic calculations unfold.
### A Weekend of Tensions
In Gaza and southern Lebanon, the truce agreements faced critical challenges. Israeli troops remained stationed in southern Lebanon past the withdrawal deadline, claiming that Hezbollah had violated its own commitment to leave the area. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Hamas did not release a female hostage as previously anticipated, prompting Israel to delay the planned return of displaced Palestinians to their northern Gaza homes.
Despite these setbacks, none of the involved parties escalated the situation to the point of resuming full-blown hostilities. Analysts see this restraint as both strategic and fragile—a willingness to flex and slightly bend the rules due to broader interests at play on all sides.
### Strategic Restraints Driving the Cease-Fire
Several factors contribute to this precarious moment of calm. Hezbollah, despite its frustrations over Israel’s lingering presence in southern Lebanon, knows that resuming rocket strikes against Israeli cities could provoke a devastating Israeli counterattack. A renewed war could further erode Hezbollah’s depleted leadership and resources, not to mention strain its Shiite support base ahead of the pivotal parliamentary elections next year.
Hamas, too, has significant stakes in maintaining peace for now. The militant group risks losing its grip on Gaza if another wave of war destroys what remains of its infrastructure and resources. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government sees the fragile truce as instrumental to retrieving hostages still held by Hamas without rushing back into conflict. Additionally, Israel has reasons to appease U.S. President Trump, who has made continued Middle East peace efforts a cornerstone of his public narrative.
### The Qatar-Mediated Resolution
This delicate balance played out during the weekend’s crises, with last-minute mediation helping avert the collapse of the cease-fire agreements. By Sunday night, Qatar announced new developments: Hamas had agreed to release the female hostage, Arbel Yehud, along with two others ahead of schedule. In return, Israel pledged to allow displaced Palestinians to return to their northern Gaza homes beginning Monday morning.
Similar measures in Lebanon also helped avert immediate disaster, with the White House announcing an extension of the truce there until February 18. While Israel and Hezbollah remained silent on the matter, the Lebanese prime minister’s office confirmed the extension, reflecting another moment of quiet compromise.
### The Cost of Compromise
Aaron David Miller, a seasoned U.S. negotiator in Middle East peace talks, summarized the underlying reality of these cease-fire agreements: they depend on mutual discretion and strategic patience. On one hand, this flexible ambiguity is their strength, allowing issues to be pressed or overlooked as needed. On the other hand, it’s also their critical weakness because of how quickly things can unravel.
For instance, Israeli troops fired on groups attempting to return to contested areas in both Lebanon and Gaza over the weekend, resulting in numerous casualties. In southern Lebanon, 22 people were reportedly killed by Israeli fire, while one fatality was recorded in Gaza. Yet even with these tragedies, both cease-fires remained intact as opposing parties absorbed losses rather than retaliating—a sign of their mutual unwillingness to let the delicate peace implode.
### Hezbollah’s Calculations and Limitations
Hezbollah emerges from this picture as a cornered yet calculating actor. The group is facing reduced military capacity after years of fighting in regional conflicts, and its access to key arms routes through Syria has been largely cut off since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s fall in December. Its leaders know that another confrontation with Israel could be catastrophic. As Lebanese analyst Hanin Ghaddar puts it, “It’s suicidal if they do this,” noting that further aggression would invite a massive Israeli response at a time when Hezbollah is already weakened.
Moreover, Hezbollah must contend with domestic political realities. Lebanon’s Shiite Muslim population, which bears the brunt of the group’s decisions, is growing increasingly wary after suffering dearly during the 2023 conflict. Southern Lebanese villages were devastated by Israeli airstrikes and ground operations, and this toll could reflect negatively on Hezbollah in next year’s elections. If the Shiite community loses faith in the group, Ghaddar warns, “this is the end of Hezbollah.”
### Gaza: The More Fragile of the Two Cease-Fires
While the Lebanese truce seems relatively durable for now, Gaza’s cease-fire remains the weaker arrangement. The true test of this accord looms in early March, when Hamas and Israel will face a decision on whether to extend the 42-day truce or let it expire. So far, Israel wants to keep the peace in order to secure further hostage releases, but extending the truce indefinitely poses deeper challenges.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition government includes far-right lawmakers who refuse to accept any resolution that leaves Hamas in control of Gaza. Netanyahu himself appears reluctant to move toward a permanent end to the war if it means granting Hamas any legitimacy. As one analyst put it, the cease-fire depends on constant give-and-take, but a drawn-out status quo without real progress would only frustrate both sides.
### A Battle of Preconditions
Both parties seem locked in a high-stakes standoff over their respective preconditions for a longer truce. Hamas is unlikely to release its remaining hostages—arguably its most valuable bargaining tool—without assurances of a permanent end to Israeli hostilities. Israel, on the other hand, has indicated it will not remain indefinitely locked in fruitless negotiations, particularly if Hamas ceases hostage releases.
This tug-of-war raises questions about the role of external actors, especially President Trump. The U.S. president played a critical role in the initial negotiation phase, pressing Netanyahu toward temporary concessions that enabled the cease-fires to take hold. However, analysts wonder whether Trump will continue to champion a long-term truce down the road, or whether he’ll support a re-escalation should it align with Netanyahu’s interests.
### The Path Ahead
Ultimately, the fate of these cease-fires hinges on an array of strategic interests and political considerations. Mutual exhaustion and short-term benefits are keeping both Lebanon and Gaza in a tenuous state of peace for now, but a permanent resolution feels far away.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah faces existential political and operational challenges that discourage renewed conflict, at least for the time being. In Gaza, the stakes are higher and the pressures more complex—hostage negotiations, domestic political calculations within Israel, and Hamas’s survival strategies all interact in volatile ways. Whether these truces can bridge the divide between temporary accommodations and permanent solutions remains to be seen.
For now, the region’s fragile calm reflects not an enduring peace, but a precarious pause—one that could break at any moment under the weight of unmet expectations, political maneuvering, and unyielding ideologies. Keeping this balance intact will require deft diplomacy, internal compromises, and likely the continued influence of global powers like the U.S. But as one analyst aptly put it, beyond the next few weeks, “it’s anyone’s guess.”
