The ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah is viewed as a diplomatic success aimed at stabilizing the region. Proponents argue that the involvement of the U.S. and France underscores a commitment to peace and the protection of civilians. The withdrawal of military forces and deployment of Lebanese troops south of the Litani River is seen as a significant step towards implementing UN Resolution 1701, potentially reducing Hezbollah's influence near the Israeli border. For supporters, this agreement marks a critical turning point in de-escalating violence while paving the way for long-term peace in the Middle East.

Critics of the ceasefire argue that it compromises Lebanon's sovereignty and imposes unrealistic expectations on its military, which is under-resourced and ill-equipped to control Hezbollah. Hezbollah's supporters frame the agreement as an externally imposed measure that fails to address underlying grievances, particularly Israeli airstrikes on Lebanese soil. They fear that the deal could weaken the resistance movement's ability to defend Lebanon against future aggressions, exacerbating internal divisions in an already fragile state. This perspective highlights skepticism about the feasibility and fairness of the agreement.

Some analysts see the agreement as a temporary fix that falls short of addressing broader issues in the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. While the ceasefire may bring immediate relief, it does not tackle the deeper geopolitical tensions or the humanitarian crises in Gaza and Lebanon. The exclusion of a formal guarantee for Israel's right to act against Hezbollah violations raises questions about the agreement’s enforceability. This perspective views the deal as a short-term arrangement that delays, rather than resolves, the cycle of violence and instability in the region.