In light of internal divisions and multilateral pressure, Beirut is engaged in direct talks with Israel, amid deep doubts about the possibility of achieving any tangible progress. This step, which is considered unprecedented, violates one of the most prominent prohibitions in the relationship between the two countries, but it appears to be fraught with complex political and security obstacles from its beginning.
According to a report by journalist Yuval Inbar in the “Israeli Broadcasting Corporation,” Lebanon has doubts about the chances of success in the direct negotiations that will begin tomorrow in Washington. The first meeting between the ambassadors of Lebanon and Israel in the United States is scheduled to take place, an event whose primary importance lies in the fact that it breaks the historical “taboo” between the two parties.
In a related context, Israeli Channel 15 reported, citing sources, that the meeting between the Israeli ambassador and the Lebanese ambassador will be held on Tuesday at 6 pm Washington time, 1 am Beirut time.
In the background of this path, both Beirut and Tel Aviv are trying, according to the report, to separate the Lebanese arena from Iranian influence, with the aim of preventing Tehran from imposing the timing of any ceasefire agreement, which reflects the deep regional dimension that weighs on these talks.
However, the biggest challenge remains internal. The report quoted an anti-Hezbollah Lebanese political source as saying that practical progress in these negotiations will be difficult, as long as the Lebanese leadership’s priority is focused on a ceasefire, and not on disarming Hezbollah, which represents a basic demand of the Israeli side.
Behind the scenes, a clear conflict is emerging within the Lebanese government between the Hezbollah camp, which seeks to be content with a ceasefire, and another camp that is pressing for the dismantling of the party’s weapons as an entry point to any sustainable settlement, which puts the Lebanese position before a severe internal test before any external negotiation.
In parallel, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem escalated his position, as he sent a letter to the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, in which he demanded that the two ambassadors’ meeting be canceled, saying: “They are pressuring you to fight your people, and they will not be satisfied until everything collapses in favor of Israel’s interests.” He added: “The only way to guarantee Lebanon’s sovereignty is to implement the ceasefire agreement, which includes stopping attacks, Israel’s withdrawal, the return of prisoners, and the return of Lebanese refugees to their homes.”
At the same time, the report revealed an unusual step in which senior officials in the Israeli army provided a special briefing to Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yehiel Laiter, ahead of his upcoming meeting with his Lebanese counterpart.
This briefing came at the request of the ambassador himself, and was carried out by senior officers from the Strategic Division of the Israeli army, after special approval from Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, where they presented to him the deployment of forces in Lebanon, along with Israeli security demands, and reviewed the military efforts made on the northern front against Hezbollah.
The officers also requested to convey a clear message that Israel is targeting Hezbollah exclusively, and stresses the need for the Lebanese army to move against it in accordance with the decision of the Lebanese government, before discussing any ceasefire agreement.
Last Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he had instructed to open negotiations with Lebanon “in light of repeated requests” from Beirut, following a call with US President Donald Trump. He added that these negotiations will focus on “disarming Hezbollah and organizing peace relations between Israel and Lebanon,” noting that Israel “appreciates the Lebanese Prime Minister’s call to disarm Beirut.”
In conclusion, these data reflect a fragile negotiating path, in which Lebanese internal calculations intersect with regional and international pressures, making any potential progress dependent on resolving the conflict over priorities inside Beirut before any agreement with the outside.
