In the northernmost Israeli town of Metula, skepticism prevails among residents regarding the recent ceasefire agreement aimed at ending hostilities along Israel’s northern border. The memorandum of understanding, signed under U.S. auspices, sets a 60-day window for peace negotiations that include a halt to fighting with Hezbollah in Lebanon. However, many locals remain unconvinced that the truce will bring lasting stability.

Metula, located near the Lebanese border in the Galilee Panhandle, has faced ongoing threats from Hezbollah rocket attacks for several years. Once home to some 50,000 Israelis, the region has seen widespread evacuations and business closures due to periodic escalations in violence. After an evacuation in October 2023 amid fears of a cross-border incursion akin to the Hamas assault from Gaza, only about two-thirds of Metula’s residents have returned.

“This won’t be a true ceasefire,” said Kobi Sarmili, a chicken farmer from nearby Margaliot. “It will just keep going like this, with intermittent rocket fire trickling down on us.” He expressed frustration with U.S. influence on Israeli policy, attributing current developments to the actions of former President Donald Trump, whose administration drove much of the recent diplomacy and military strategy.

Tensions between Israel and Hezbollah remain a critical issue complicating broader U.S.-Iran negotiations. The Lebanese border has been a key sticking point, contributing to the collapse of the first round of talks in Switzerland earlier this week. Residents like Miry Menashe, a coffee shop owner in Metula, stressed the need for effective Lebanese security forces in southern Lebanon, suggesting that the peace effort requires Lebanon’s army to take a more active role in the region.

“The war with Hezbollah is separate from the confrontation with Iran,” Menashe said, echoing official Israeli positions. She also called on the U.S. to clarify its stance, urging former President Trump to be either a consistent ally or adversary rather than adopting a contradictory approach.

The political ramifications of the ongoing conflict and ceasefire efforts are apparent in Israel. Netanyahu’s Likud party and its coalition members have experienced a decline in public support since returning to power in 2022. Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot recently overtook Netanyahu in polls assessing leadership suitability. Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance publicly criticized Israeli politicians such as Itamar Ben-Gvir for attacking the interim deal, emphasizing the importance of diplomacy alongside military measures.

Ben-Gvir responded with hardline rhetoric, declaring that for each Israeli casualty, Lebanon must suffer greatly. Such statements underscore the sharply divided perspectives within Israel regarding the conflict and its resolution strategies.

Kiryat Shmona, the largest city in the Galilee Panhandle and a longstanding flashpoint for cross-border violence, continues to bear the scars of repeated attacks. Local business owner Eliav Raichbach reported that nearly half the town’s residents have not returned since evacuations began, with many businesses still closed. Once a solid Likud stronghold, the area’s political landscape is shifting amid dissatisfaction with current leadership.

Both Menashe and Raichbach, former supporters of Netanyahu, have withdrawn their backing following his indictment on graft charges several years ago. “There is no such thing as an irreplaceable man,” Raichbach said. “Even Bibi has a replacement. He was once good for Israel, but that’s no longer the case.”

As the ceasefire period unfolds, residents along Israel’s northern border remain uncertain whether peace will take hold or if the area will continue to endure intermittent violence under a tense and fragile truce.