In light of the rapid developments on the Lebanese scene, Israeli analyzes of the course of direct talks with Lebanon are increasing, between those who consider it a strategic achievement and those who see it as a step imposed by internal political considerations and external pressures, especially from the American side.
According to an analysis by Professor Eli Bode and Eitan Yishai on the Hebrew Channel 12, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s announcement of the start of direct negotiations with Lebanon may seem like a “historic breakthrough,” but assessments indicate that it may be motivated by the need to promote calming the situation on the northern front in response to the request of US President Donald Trump, and not as a result of a purely Israeli initiative.
The authors confirm that this path did not come suddenly, as the Lebanese willingness to conduct direct negotiations had been on the table for more than a month, as President Joseph Aoun and officials in Beirut expressed, through public and diplomatic channels, their willingness to discuss a broader settlement that might go beyond a mere ceasefire. France has also worked on drafting a written initiative aimed at establishing a road map for a political settlement between the two parties, although it is still far from complete.
In parallel, the article refers to Lebanese steps described as unprecedented towards Hezbollah, which included declaring its military wing an illegal organization and preventing the activity of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Lebanon, in addition to measures of a symbolic nature aimed at reducing its legitimacy internally, which reflects a gradual shift in the Lebanese state’s dealings with the party.
However, the authors draw attention to the fact that any direct negotiations will not lead in the near future to the disarmament of Hezbollah, considering that this goal requires a long and complex path that may extend for years, and cannot be achieved through military action alone, but rather requires a parallel political path.
The analysis highlights the strategic importance of these talks, as they would deepen the dispute between the Lebanese state and Hezbollah, and reshape the internal political scene, weakening the “resistance” narrative and undermining the justifications for the party’s continuation as a military force outside the framework of the state.
On the other hand, the article warns of the possibility that the Israeli government will use these negotiations as a cover to reduce military operations without a real intention to reach a settlement, by imposing impossible conditions or holding Lebanon responsible for failure later, which could lead to adverse results that strengthen Hezbollah’s position internally.
The two authors also list three main challenges facing any negotiating path: the first is the position of the Amal Movement led by Nabih Berri and the possibility that it will constitute an obstacle if it continues to support Hezbollah’s position, the second is the possibility that the party, with Iranian support, will resort to mobilizing the Shiite street in Lebanon, and the third is the issue of Israeli withdrawal to the international border, which remains linked to complex security guarantees.
The article concludes by emphasizing that the current moment may represent a rare opportunity to reformulate the relationship between Lebanon and Israel, in light of the regional changes that followed the October 7 events. However, the success of this path remains dependent on the seriousness of the parties in turning it into a real political process, and not just a temporary maneuver.
