Jono Maryono
The current escalation of hostilities began on March 2nd, when Israel intensified its military campaign against Lebanon. This surge in violence followed Hezbollah’s first significant retaliatory strikes in over fifteen months, a response that the group stated was also in retaliation for the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by Israeli and American forces two days prior. Since March 2nd, Israeli actions have resulted in the deaths of 2,294 individuals in Lebanon, a grim tally that includes journalists and medical personnel. The conflict has also led to the displacement of over 1.2 million people, as Israel has expanded its invasion and established what it terms a "yellow line," a buffer zone approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the border. Residents within this zone are barred from returning to their homes, and Israel has engaged in the demolition of villages and individual dwellings within this declared area.
A recent tour organized by Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese political and military entity that governs much of the affected region, offered a stark glimpse into the devastation. In towns such as al-Mansouri, Majdal Zoun, and Qlaileh, the landscape bore witness to widespread destruction, with buildings reduced to mere rubble and dust. The ongoing negotiations were scheduled to take place while Israeli forces remained on Lebanese soil, continuing their destructive operations and attacks. Just the day before the talks, on Wednesday, Israel’s strikes claimed the lives of five people in Lebanon, including Amal Khalil, a front-line reporter whose work had documented the human cost of the conflict. The Lebanese Health Ministry reported on Thursday that another Israeli attack had resulted in three fatalities.
These direct negotiations mark the first formal dialogue between Lebanon and Israel in decades. They follow an initial preparatory meeting held on April 14th, also in Washington D.C. The Thursday session was set to convene Lebanon’s and Israel’s ambassadors to the United States, alongside the U.S. ambassadors to Lebanon and Israel. Michael Issa, the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, and Mike Huckabee, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, were expected to participate, along with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Notably, all these figures, with the exception of Ambassador Huckabee, were present at the April preliminary meeting.
The Lebanese government, represented by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, stated its intention to seek an extension of the current ceasefire, a condition that has been repeatedly violated by Israel, as a prerequisite for continued engagement. Furthermore, Lebanon aims to secure a complete Israeli withdrawal from its territory and the return of Lebanese captives held by Israel.
However, Hezbollah has publicly rejected these direct negotiations, signaling a deep rift within Lebanon’s political landscape. The opposition to the talks extends beyond the militant group; a day prior to the April preliminary meeting, hundreds of protesters gathered in downtown Beirut to voice their strong disapproval. Some who oppose the negotiations believe that Iran, Hezbollah’s long-standing patron, possesses greater leverage to negotiate on Lebanon’s behalf. Others are fundamentally opposed due to a perceived lack of leverage on the part of the Lebanese state and a deep-seated distrust of Israel’s historical commitment to upholding agreements.
Fouad Debs, a Lebanese lawyer, expressed a prevailing sentiment of pessimism regarding the potential outcomes of the negotiations. "Probably the only deal that’s possible right now at the moment is anything that’s very favourable to Israel, as we have seen in the past many years, and especially since Lebanon is going there unprepared, with no leverage and no deterrence," Debs told Al Jazeera. He argued that the only effective deterrence available to Lebanon at present is the resistance offered by Hezbollah, a force that the current government and president are actively working against internally. Debs suggested alternative avenues for Lebanon, such as pursuing action through the International Criminal Court and aligning with the growing international coalition seeking to hold Israel accountable for its actions.
A History Steeped in Conflict
The complexities surrounding the negotiations are deeply rooted in Lebanon’s contentious relationship with Israel and internal political divisions. Shortly after Hezbollah’s retaliatory attacks on March 2nd, the Lebanese government took the significant step of declaring Hezbollah’s military activities illegal, a move that underscored the growing chasm between the state and the powerful armed group.
The issue of Hezbollah’s weaponry has been a persistent point of contention within Lebanon for decades. Following the conclusion of the 15-year Lebanese Civil War in 1990, all militias, with the exception of Hezbollah, surrendered their arms. Hezbollah members, however, retained their weapons, framing them as a necessary tool to counter the ongoing Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. The Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 reignited the debate over Hezbollah’s arsenal, a period that coincided with the group’s peak in domestic popularity. Despite this, internal disputes over the organization’s arms persisted. Today, Hezbollah’s support base is largely confined to the Shia Muslim community.
In the aftermath of the 2024 ceasefire that brought a previous intensification of Israeli attacks to an end, the Lebanese state pledged to disarm Hezbollah, tasking the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) with this objective. While the LAF made some progress, critics, both within Israel and internationally, argued that the disarmament efforts were insufficient. Now, in the wake of devastating Israeli attacks that have resulted in thousands of casualties and displaced over a million people, a segment of the Lebanese population is advocating for a new strategic approach.
"Lebanese history with Israel is full of blood," stated Jad Shahrour, a communications manager at the Samir Kassir Foundation, emphasizing that any negotiations must acknowledge this painful past. Shahrour posited that engagement in negotiations does not necessarily equate to full normalization. Instead, he views these talks as a potential first step for the Lebanese state to reassert its authority and sovereignty over the nation.
"What options do we have besides this?" Shahrour asked rhetorically. "Do we have any power? No. But did Hezbollah’s way get the desired result? Also, no." He candidly acknowledged Lebanon’s limited leverage in the current geopolitical climate. "One can say they reject this, but our options are limited, and it is better to try diplomacy than not try at all," he asserted. "If we say no, then bombing returns to Beirut, the Israelis will enter even further, and neither Hezbollah nor the state can protect the people."
The prevailing sentiment among many in Lebanon is a profound distrust of Israel’s willingness to engage in good-faith negotiations and a perception of the United States as a biased mediator. The central question, therefore, revolves around whether these direct talks represent the least unfavorable of a series of bad options, or if alternative strategies such as continued armed resistance, engaging Iran as a negotiator, or pursuing a more robust international legal approach might be more advantageous.
Navigating Limited Leverage
Despite the palpable lack of leverage, some experts suggest that Lebanon possesses more agency than is immediately apparent. Mohanad Hage Ali, the deputy director for research at the Carnegie Middle East Center, articulated a strategic imperative for Lebanon in his recent analysis. "Lebanon should establish its own terms of reference in the negotiations, not allow them to undermine the state’s standing and alienate it from a regional bloc that opposes Israel," Hage Ali wrote. He posited that "A balancing act of this kind may invite criticism in the short term, but it is more likely to yield durable results over time."
The current round of negotiations represents a critical juncture for Lebanon, forcing a national reckoning with its history, its present vulnerabilities, and its aspirations for a stable future. The divergent views on how to achieve this future—whether through diplomacy or continued resistance—highlight the deep societal divisions that have been exacerbated by years of conflict and instability. The outcome of these talks, regardless of their immediate success or failure, will undoubtedly shape the trajectory of Lebanon’s relationship with Israel and its position within the volatile regional landscape for years to come. The shopkeeper’s fear of reprisal underscores the sensitive and dangerous environment in which these crucial discussions are taking place, a stark reminder of the human cost of prolonged conflict and the profound challenges of forging peace.
