The question in Lebanon today is no longer when the ceasefire will hold, but how to prevent the war from happening again.
Since the truce came into effect, the debate has gradually shifted from halting military confrontation to a broader issue: restoring the state's full role, concentrating the exclusive right to bear arms in its hands, and extending its authority across all its territory — so that the state alone, through its legitimate institutions, holds the power to decide on war and peace.
This shift was clearly evident in the positions of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who stressed that Lebanon faces a clear choice between exclusive state control over weapons or continued subjugation to the logic of militias — an affirmation reflecting the return of the sovereignty file to the top of Lebanon's priorities.
In the same vein, Lebanese Foreign Minister Youssef Raji considered that the framework agreement with Israel, under American sponsorship, represents a victory for the diplomatic solution and an affirmation of the logic of the state — signalling that the coming phase is not only about a ceasefire but about entrenching the authority of official institutions.
Yet the picture on the other side appears far from settled. Israel insists that the ceasefire does not mean the end of its military presence or the cessation of its security operations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during his visit to southern Lebanon, declared that Israel would not withdraw as long as Hezbollah retains its military capabilities, while Defence Minister Israel Katz confirmed that Israeli forces would remain in the