U.S. Special Envoy Amos Hochstein has defended the recently brokered ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah, countering criticism in Israel and clarifying misconceptions about the deal. Speaking in two separate interviews, Hochstein addressed skepticism over the agreement's terms, particularly the absence of an Israeli military buffer zone in southern Lebanon, and outlined the steps required to solidify the ceasefire.

Addressing Israeli Criticism

Hochstein pushed back against claims that a better deal could have been achieved. Speaking to Channel 12 News, he dismissed such notions as unrealistic.

“From the sidelines to say you could have had a better deal that gets all these fantasy elements is nothing more than just that — fantasy,” Hochstein said.

He also refuted allegations that the United States had pressured Israel into accepting the ceasefire by threatening action at the UN Security Council.

“There was no such discussion at any point. It never came up,” he asserted.

Hochstein emphasized that Hezbollah has been significantly weakened through the conflict, affirming that the militant group “is weakened. It is degraded.”

Ceasefire as a Strategic Opportunity

In another interview with CNBC, Hochstein framed the ceasefire as a timely translation of Israel’s military gains into a diplomatic resolution.

“We saw an opportunity here. Israel made tremendous gains on the battlefield, and we thought this was the right time to try to bring about, translating those gains on the battlefield into a permanent ceasefire,” he explained.

Hochstein noted that the conflict was not between Israel and Lebanon as a whole, but rather between Israel on one side, and Hezbollah and Iran on the other. He, accordingly, highlighted the complications of negotiating a ceasefire when one of the parties, Lebanon, was not directly involved in the fighting.

“The Lebanese people never really wanted to play a part in this war, so how do you put together a ceasefire between two countries when one wasn’t a party to it? That made it complicated,” Hochstein said.

Implementation and Misconceptions

The U.S. envoy addressed misunderstandings surrounding the ceasefire’s terms, particularly media references to a "60-day ceasefire."

“This is not a 60-day ceasefire. It is a permanent ceasefire, or, at least, we hope so,” he clarified.

He outlined the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, noting that the Lebanese army’s limited capacity necessitates a phased approach.

“The Israeli troops that were occupying space in certain clusters in South Lebanon are still on the ground. Part of that is just the reality that the Lebanese army does not have the capacity to deploy forces into the South on an immediate basis,” Hochstein explained.

He revealed that the Lebanese army must assemble a force of over 5,000 troops to take over the region.

“This will be a gradual withdrawal. By the time we get to 60 days, or maybe 50, we’ll see the first troops already withdrawing, and 20 days later we’ll see about two-thirds of the troops gone, and then the remaining ones,” he added.

New Mechanisms for Accountability

Hochstein highlighted the agreement’s innovative mechanisms for ensuring compliance, distinguishing it from the 2006 ceasefire that ended the Second Lebanon War.

“What’s very different between this agreement and the one that ended the 2006 war is that we put together, for the first time, a real mechanism, shared by the United States with France and others, that will review every violation,” he said.

The new framework aims to ensure that Hezbollah withdraws from southern Lebanon and dismantles its remaining terrorist infrastructure.

“We cannot establish any of those terrorist organizations having a foothold in South Lebanon again. These are really heavy and tough tasks, but I think that we’ve put in place, based on lessons learned from the failures of previous agreements, how to do it better,” Hochstein concluded.

Cautious Optimism

While optimistic about the agreement, Hochstein acknowledged the inherent fragility of any peace initiative in the Middle East.

“You asked how permanent versus tenuous this is. I think anything in the Middle East is tenuous no matter what the agreement is. You can’t let anything be on its own,” he said.

The agreement represents a critical step toward stability in the region, but Hochstein underscored the importance of ongoing efforts to ensure its success.