– Muhammad Alloush
The Lebanese authorities are moving toward direct negotiations with Israel, seeking a ceasefire. While it is claimed that direct negotiation is feasible and that the separation of tracks must continue, Israel seeks to divide the Lebanese arena into two parallel tracks: a state that negotiates, and a party that is targeted by war.
According to informed sources, Israel seeks to confirm what the US Ambassador to Beirut, Michel Issa, said that the path of negotiation with the Lebanese state differs from the path of the war against “Hezbollah” and the weapons of the resistance. This has been the essence of the Israeli bet for decades, and it returns today in a clearer form, benefiting from military pressure simultaneous with the fragility of the Lebanese interior and the division of positions.
Ostensibly, it is a negotiation with the state and a continuation of the war. But fundamentally, it is an effort to redefine Lebanon’s actual location. This equation, if achieved, will not only mean separating paths, but rather separating the entire Lebanese components, and transforming the state into a structure that negotiates without influence, while the resistance and its environment are left in an open confrontation without benefiting from the process of forming the region, nor even the descending steps of the Lebanese state. Can such an equation continue?
The sources believe that the Lebanese experience shows that any attempt of this kind quickly collides with reality. The field in Lebanon is not isolated from its surroundings, and the political decision must remain governed by internal balances that impose themselves, otherwise the structure will be exposed to major shocks. It indicates that it is not possible to establish an actual ceasefire with a country that does not alone have the keys to calm, and in return, it is not possible to continue an open war against an internal force without this being reflected in the entire Lebanese structure, politically, security-wise, and socially.
As for talk about a gradual ceasefire starting from Beirut and the suburb, then moving to the north of the Litani and then its south, it is an existing proposal but without clear adoption. If it happens, it may be an introduction to implementing the idea we mentioned. The sources indicate that there is no official announcement about the neutralization of the capital or the suburb, but the presentation of this scenario in conjunction with the approval of the Iranians’ entry into the Islamabad negotiations, and the lack of official talk about it, means that it does not constitute an agreement, but rather arrangements, and it is not known whether they will hold. The evidence is that what is required today is not to return to the suburb, as if the war on it had stopped.
According to the sources, official Lebanon has submitted a ceasefire request to Israel, as a condition for entering into negotiations, and is awaiting a response. It indicates that those wishing to negotiate are counting on American pressure on Israel, which has been long overdue since the moment Israel tore up the resolution to stop the war in November 2024. But what if America offers nothing?
On the other hand, the Shiite position on the negotiations remains the same, the sources confirm, noting that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nabih Berri, informed the Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, that he is not covering the negotiations, and his position is clear regarding the indirect negotiation after the ceasefire.
The entity has many scenarios for the negotiation session, while on the battlefield, the Israelis are desperate to occupy Bint Jbeil due to its strategic importance.
Israel realizes that the battle with Lebanon is a military, political and psychological battle, so it plays on internal contradictions as much as it can. When it proposes negotiations with the state, it is addressing a segment that sees this as a way out of the war. When it continues to target Hezbollah, it is betting that a part of the inside may deal with this targeting as a separate matter, or cause the resistance environment to disintegrate around it. Therefore, the unified “no and no” position was the most important Lebanese weapon against Israel.
