In an in-depth analysis of the future of the clash on the Lebanese front, an American report concludes that the current ceasefire is fragile and unsustainable, due to the great discrepancy in the goals of the parties concerned, and the continuation of complex structural problems within Lebanon.
According to a report prepared by researcher Alexander Langlois and published in the National Interest magazine, the efforts led by Washington, which included hosting the first direct dialogues between Lebanon and Israel since 1993 on April 14, are considered a “historic opportunity,” but they are still insufficient to address the roots of the conflict or put an end to the suffering of civilians, especially the Lebanese.
The report explains that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the talks as a “complex process,” expressing his hope to achieve results that guarantee a better future for the Lebanese and security for the Israelis. However, according to the author, this view reflects a deficiency in understanding the nature of the conflict.
The report believes that the official statement issued after the talks contains clear bias, as it holds Iran, the Lebanese government, and Hezbollah responsible, ignoring the Israeli role in fueling the conflict, which reduces the chances of the success of any negotiating path.
The analysis confirms that the field reality indicates that the Israeli army is continuing its operations inside Lebanese territory, including destroying southern villages and targeting infrastructure, which, according to the report, represents a violation of international humanitarian law.
On the other hand, the report does not absolve Hezbollah from responsibility, noting that it is a prominent political and military player in Lebanon, and has parliamentary representation of up to 14 representatives, within a bloc that may reach 61 representatives. It, along with its allies, garnered more than 600,000 votes in the recent elections, which reflects its popular presence that cannot be ignored in any settlement.
The report warns that any negotiations that ignore this reality will not succeed, and may even lead to adverse results, as the continuation of military operations against the party may increase its legitimacy as a “resistance” movement, in a country that has not yet recovered from the consequences of the civil war.
The report also points out that the Israeli goal of disarming Hezbollah seems impossible to achieve in light of the current conditions, given the Lebanese state’s lack of the ability to impose this option.
In a related context, the report indicates that Washington is seeking to expand the Abraham Accords, considering the calm in Lebanon to be part of these efforts, despite its awareness of the large gap between the goals of the parties.
The writer warns that some opinions within Israel and the United States may go so far as to consider the outbreak of a Lebanese civil war as a means to achieve the goal of disarming Hezbollah, which he describes as a dangerous and unrealistic perception.
