- 12:00
Whenever an agreement—whether purely technical or otherwise—between Lebanon and Israel is discussed, confusion arises, often followed by accusations and excessive speculation. Many Lebanese tend to mix up and confuse the terms "armistice," "normalization," and "peace." This makes it necessary to clarify the differences between these three types of agreements, particularly in the Middle Eastern context, where they play a role in any potential resolution of the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.
An armistice is initially a formal agreement between warring parties to cease hostilities while awaiting a comprehensive and lasting resolution to a military conflict. It is not a definitive peace treaty but rather a commitment by both sides to abide by the terms of the agreement. Unlike a peace treaty, which is political in nature, an armistice falls within the military and technical domains. It is often overseen by a peacekeeping mission or an international commission, as was the case with the 1953 armistice between North and South Korea, which was supervised by the United Nations.
Normalization refers to the process by which two or more states or parties in conflict restore normal diplomatic relations after a period of war, tension, or severed ties. This process includes reopening embassies, establishing relations, and cooperating in various fields such as finance, trade, culture, health, science, and technology.
A peace agreement is a formal treaty that officially ends an armed conflict and establishes the foundation for a long-term settlement of disputes between warring parties. It often involves military, political, economic, and social aspects. Peace agreements are typically the result of multilateral negotiations and may also be overseen by international organizations such as the UN to ensure compliance and implementation.
For example, the armistice of November 11, 1918, between France and Germany, temporarily ended hostilities in World War I and laid the groundwork for future peace negotiations. However, the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 officially ended World War I but resulted in a fragile peace. Germany perceived the treaty as a humiliation, losing nearly one-sixth of its territory, all its African colonies, and being forced to pay war reparations alongside its allies, who were held solely responsible for the war. Furthermore, Germany’s army was limited to 100,000 troops with no heavy equipment.
Armistice as a Step Toward Peace
"More than just a ceasefire or a temporary truce, an armistice lays the foundation for a potential peace agreement. It seeks a change in conduct but does not necessarily imply a change in attitude," explains Selim Sayegh, member of the Kataeb Party and a doctor of international law. "A change in conduct means mutual respect for commitments, whereas conflict resolution or transformation requires a deeper and lasting change," he adds.
Referring to the 1949 armistice between Israel and Arab states, including Lebanon, Sayegh notes, "There was no recognition of the Israeli state nor a resumption of diplomatic relations. However, a mechanism was established to ensure compliance with the agreement. This included measures such as restoring communication channels between the two sides and setting up an early warning system for border incidents."
Normalization as a Political Concept
Sayegh emphasizes that normalization is a political concept, which entails "a real entry into peaceful relations as outlined in international agreements. Every state recognized by the UN has the right to establish peaceful relations with others."
He further explains that normalization is primarily used in the Middle East in reference to relations with Israel, indicating that a state of non-belligerence has not yet reached the level of full peaceful relations. "Neither the 1949 armistice nor the Abraham Accords (signed in August 2020 between Israel and the UAE, as well as Bahrain) can be considered peace agreements," Sayegh argues.
"Normalization is an intermediate stage between non-belligerence and peaceful relations," he clarifies. "It should be defined on a case-by-case basis, accompanying the transition from conflict toward peace."
Peace Agreements Require Justice
In the Middle East context, Sayegh believes that a true peace agreement requires "a roadmap and a political decision based on fundamental principles, primarily a sense of justice and fairness regarding the parties involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." This, he argues, requires a profound shift in how governments interact with one another.
"In exerting maximum pressure on Gaza and Lebanon, Israel is dangerously conflating a just cause—the Palestinian cause—with an unjust one. The latter is characterized by the use of terrorism and extremism, driven by a certain apocalyptic religious ideology regarding conflict resolution in the region," Sayegh states. He was referring to Hamas and Hezbollah, both backed by Iran.
"By doing so," he continues, "Israel is pushing its adversaries toward extremism rather than bringing them toward moderation. In such a scenario, power dynamics take precedence over values, but peace cannot be achieved through power struggles."
Legitimacy Is Key
Sayegh stresses that "for a genuine peace to be built, the agreement must be seen as legitimate by both parties. Without legitimacy, an agreement cannot be sustainable." He points out numerous historical examples of this challenge.
One such example is the Oslo Accords, signed in 1993 between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat, under the sponsorship of US President Bill Clinton. The agreement ended armed conflicts between the two parties, with Israel recognizing the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, while the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist. The two sides agreed to establish a Palestinian Authority, which would govern parts of the West Bank and Gaza for a five-year interim period.
However, two years later, Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli ultranationalist terrorist, which severely undermined the peace process. In 2007, Hamas violently seized control of Gaza, sidelining the Palestinian Authority. The consequences of these events continue to shape the conflict today.
Comments