“Lebanon Debate” – Jawad Al-Sayegh
The Lebanese arena is witnessing one of the most delicate moments in its modern history, as diplomatic moves intersect with military calculations in a complex scene summed up by a bold headline: Ten days, the deadline set for the ceasefire that has been extended, may reshape the country’s future. With the beginning of signs of political openness, and the emergence of unprecedented negotiating paths with Israel, Lebanon stands at a critical crossroads between sliding into more tension or embarking on a long path towards calm.
The beginning of an unprecedented negotiating path
The meeting that brought together the Lebanese ambassador with the Israeli ambassador in Washington last Tuesday constituted a remarkable turning point, as it opened the door to the start of direct negotiations, even at the ambassadorial level. The most important thing in this step is not only its content, but its symbolism: for the first time in decades, the request for negotiation comes from the Lebanese side, in a precedent that reflects the magnitude of the pressures and challenges facing the Lebanese state.
This development was followed by rapid international action at a higher level, represented by a phone call between President Joseph Aoun and US President Donald Trump, who in turn contacted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to later announce a ceasefire, which provided a narrow window of time to rearrange the papers, with the US President announcing an upcoming meeting between Aoun and Netanyahu in the White House.
What after the ceasefire?
The coming days will be a real test of the Lebanese government’s ability to seize the initiative. The most prominent challenge that Washington, Tel Aviv, and the countries that intervened in the ceasefire are monitoring is the implementation of their decision to consider the military wing of Hezbollah an illegal organization, a decision that carries with it very sensitive internal repercussions.
Does the state have the political and military tools to impose this decision? Or will the field reality remain stronger than the official texts?
Hezbollah’s dilemma: between inside and outside
Dealing with Hezbollah at this stage presents multiple scenarios. If pressure is put on him, he may resort to creating internal problems, which may plunge the country into a spiral of security instability. If he chooses to calm down, this may be the beginning of a gradual shift in his role and position.
The most pressing question remains: Will the party comply with the government’s decisions? Can he surrender his weapons?
So far, this possibility seems unlikely, especially since such a step would put him in an embarrassing position in front of his fans, who have paid a heavy price in recent years, with repeated waves of displacement over three years, thousands of victims, and the destruction of tens of thousands of residential buildings. Justifying such a move will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, in the near term.
Israel: the primary beneficiary
On the other hand, Israel appears to be in a position of strength. After its control was limited to a few points inside Lebanese territory, its influence expanded to reach a depth of approximately ten kilometers south of the Litani. This field reality gives it an additional pressure card in any future negotiations, and the ceasefire agreement gave it the right to take all necessary measures for self-defense against any planned, imminent or ongoing attacks, which means the possibility of continuing to carry out attacks similar to those it was carrying out during the months following the previous ceasefire in November 2024 until the outbreak of the current confrontations.
Israel will closely monitor how the Lebanese army deals with Hezbollah, and will also evaluate the government’s seriousness in approaching the peace file. In any case, the current equation remains clear: Israel controls the field in the south, while the party does not have a similar presence inside the Galilee.
From “land for peace” to “ceasefire for peace”
The most prominent shift in the scene is that the rules of the game have changed. The traditional equation that was based on the principle of “land for peace” seems to have ended, to be replaced by a new equation that Israel seeks to impose, which is based on “a ceasefire in exchange for commencing negotiations towards peace.”
This shift reflects the new balance of power, and places Lebanon facing difficult choices, as Israeli withdrawal is no longer quick or guaranteed.
History lessons: Peace takes time
Previous experiences in the region confirm that peace is not achieved overnight. Anwar Sadat’s visit to Israel in 1977 marked the beginning of a long process that began with indirect negotiations led by Henry Kissinger after the 1973 war, and culminated in the Camp David Accords and then the 1979 peace treaty.
The same applies to Jordan, which began its negotiations during the Madrid Conference, before signing the Wadi Araba Agreement after years of dialogue. Even Israeli withdrawal from Sinai was not immediate, but took eight years of interim agreements until full withdrawal in 1982, with Taba remaining a point of contention until 1989.
Lebanon is facing a historic test
Today, Lebanon faces a similar moment, but on more complex conditions. Between internal pressures and external calculations, and between Hezbollah’s weapons and the state’s requirements, the features of the next stage are determined, and the questions remain open:
Will the government begin to impose its sovereignty in a different way than it was before last March 2?
Will Hezbollah engage in the new path or obstruct it?
Will the ceasefire be the beginning of a long peace process, or just a temporary truce that could collapse at any moment?
These 10 days may not resolve all the answers, but they will lay the foundation for what is to come. In Lebanon, small beginnings are often a precursor to major transformations: either starting a real path towards peace, with all that this requires of imposing state authority and taking ownership of the decision on war and peace, or the country must have peace.
