What value Does a "ceasefire" still have?

Anyone following developments in the Middle East may have noticed something peculiar. Whenever people speak of a "ceasefire," the firing often continues regardless. Agreements are signed, press releases are issued, and diplomats congratulate one another on a breakthrough. At the same time, attacks continue. Bombs keep falling. Bullets keep flying. The firing is anything but ceased.

Does this mean the term is losing its meaning? Karim El Taki, an expert on Middle Eastern politics, thinks the word still means something, just not the same thing to everyone who uses it.

What is a ceasefire?

Violations of ceasefires are nothing new. In previous conflicts, agreements were regularly breached. The difference today is that the term is being interpreted with remarkable flexibility. El Taki explains: ‘What is considered a violation of a ceasefire today would, in the past, have been called the beginning of a new war. In that sense, the term may have become so flexible that it risks losing its meaning altogether.’

This is because a ceasefire carries little legal weight. ‘You should see it as a useful political fiction. Mediators can claim success, warring parties can speak of de-escalation, and the international community gets the sense that the situation is under control’, says El Taki. Beneath that fiction, however, lies the hard reality of power and deterrence.

‘It is important to distinguish between power and deterrence’, El Taki explains. ‘Power is what you have on paper: weapons, personnel, and resources. Deterrence is how costly it would be for someone to enter into conflict with you.’ He points to North Vietnam as an example: an adversary that possessed far less power on paper, yet exercised a significant deterrent effect.

Ceasefires in the Middle East

‘The deterrence factor helps explain why the situation between Israel and Hezbollah remained relatively stable for so long. Not because the parties had great respect for the legal status of a ceasefire, but because there was a balance of deterrence,’ says El Taki. Both sides considered the prospect of war so undesirable that maintaining peace was the preferable option.

‘With Hezbollah being seriously weakened since 2024, that relative balance of deterrence changed’, according to El Taki. And because that balance was the real foundation of the ceasefire, the fragile peace collapsed like a house of cards.

‘There is also the problem that different parties often have very different interpretations of what a ceasefire actually means,’ El Taki adds. ‘For Israel, a ceasefire means military freedom of action and a disarmed Hezbollah. For the latter, a ceasefire means Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and its resistance identity preserved.’

As a result, El Taki does not see a ceasefire as a first step toward ending a conflict, but rather as a reclassification of the conflict. ‘To understand what is really happening, it is far more important to look at the underlying dynamics of power and deterrence. Those are often the true reasons why a conflict ends or continues.’

There is, however, a broader problem associated with stretching the meaning of a ceasefire. ‘Ceasefire" is a term that everyone uses, but that seems to mean something different to everyone. As El Taki puts it, ‘A word that can mean anything ends up meaning nothing.’