Israel sticks to its position in negotiations and helps Hezbollah sabotage the solution in Lebanon
- Questions remain about the degree of flexibility Trump will show toward Lebanon... and what he will impose on Tel Aviv?
According to the newspaper Haaretz, in light of Hezbollah’s threats, Lebanon will attempt to persuade the United States to agree to a phased process. The question that remains open is: What margin of flexibility will President Donald Trump grant in the Lebanese file, and what will he impose on Israel?
According to the Israeli newspaper’s report, U.S. General Joseph Kellard has so far spent long hours in talks without achieving practical results. It remains difficult to speak of concrete achievements by the general, who heads the mechanism for coordinating and monitoring the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, and who could push negotiations between the two sides forward.
Last Wednesday, he arrived in Beirut after a visit to Israel, where he met Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Lebanese Army Chief of Staff Rodolphe Haykal. On the same day, he returned to Tel Aviv, and then went back to Beirut on Friday to hold a series of meetings with Prime Minister Najib Mikati, Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri, and leader of the Amal Movement.
Public reports issued in Lebanon following these meetings spoke of “good atmosphere,” “American understanding of Lebanon’s demands,” and “appreciation for the Lebanese Army’s work.” However, no date has yet been set for a new round of talks between the Israeli and Lebanese political and military delegations, nor is there an agreement on the next areas from which the Israeli army will withdraw, allowing the Lebanese army to deploy its forces there.
It has also not yet been decided which countries will participate in the body tasked with examining and verifying the Lebanese army’s implementation of its mission to clear the “experimental zones” of Hezbollah presence.
A Lebanese analyst, who spoke to Haaretz at the end of the week, said the prevailing impression in Beirut is that Israel and the United States are trying to “buy time” until elections are held in both countries.
He added: “Public statements in Israel do not indicate an intention to withdraw from Lebanon, partially or completely; the relentless attacks and assassinations of Hezbollah leaders continue as if there is no ceasefire; and the United States itself provides Israel with cover for these operations, which undermine the Lebanese government’s ability to move the process forward.”
The analyst added that a sense of distrust has begun to develop regarding the seriousness of the United States, and that “suddenly it now appears that Washington has plenty of time.”
Two main claims emerged in the talks between Kellard and Lebanese officials: first, that Israel is systematically violating the ceasefire; and second, that it is not providing the Lebanese government with a specific, time-bound action plan to help it in its internal struggle against Hezbollah.
Instead of withdrawing, Israel has expanded the “Yellow Line,” while the systematic destruction of villages continues unabated. The establishment of a network of roads, streets, and permanent bases is seen as evidence of an intention to implement Defense Minister Israel Katz’s statements about remaining in Lebanon for an extended period. Meanwhile, the continued assassination of Hezbollah leaders is interpreted in Lebanon as an indication of an intention to resume all-out war against the group.
The Lebanese government, which initiated the political process, now finds itself caught between Israeli and American political considerations on one hand, and domestic criticism over its weak performance in managing the negotiations on the other.
This comes after the government adopted a policy of “monopolizing weapons in the hands of the state” as a strategic principle, and announced its intention to end the state of war with Israel, thereby reaching a peace agreement with it, while also stripping the party of its status as “the protector of Lebanon.”
Lebanon’s political arena was supposed to form, alongside the war issue, a pathway to circumvent Iranian influence; this would have severed the link between the various fronts, undermined Tehran’s control over its most important proxies, and forced Hezbollah to choose between transforming into a political organization or entrenching itself as an organization hostile to the state, thereby rendering a war against it legitimate.
At the outset of the process, despite the Israeli stance, Washington viewed Lebanon not only as an independent front where the president could record his first political achievement, but also perhaps fundamentally as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Iran.
However, as the campaign in the Gulf region has become more complicated without any sign of a solution to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and with Iran’s arm in Iraq escalating its activities, while the Houthis continue their attacks on navigation in the Red Sea, Lebanon’s importance as a bulwark against Iran appears to be waning in the eyes of the US administration.
Last week, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the Iranian parliament speaker and head of the negotiation team, said he was “in direct contact with Hezbollah, including personal talks with commanders and fighters on the front.”
He added, “I personally know every young man on the frontline. They will not break the line of resistance.”
In other public statements, Iran has continued to insist that the Lebanese front remains part of the conditions it proposes for resuming negotiations with the United States.
According to reports in Arab media, Tehran is also attempting to transfer funds to the party through an exchange network that bypasses banking systems, or by transferring cash. It is unknown whether Tehran is succeeding in delivering funds to the organization, or the volume of money reaching it.
However, reports in Lebanon indicate that the party is struggling to pay the salaries of its civilian employees. It has also failed to fulfill its commitments to compensate residents whose homes were damaged by Israeli bombardment, to rebuild their homes, or at least to pay them rental allowances.
At this stage, despite threats from the party’s secretary-general, Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hezbollah is still moving in a limited and localized manner, and its capacity to develop a broad-scale confrontation appears constrained.
A person working at a Lebanese research institute, who requested anonymity, told Haaretz, “The organization’s effort at present is focused on undermining the legitimacy of the government’s steps, portraying them as betraying national interests, being subject to Israeli and American dictates, and being unable to confront the Iranian challenge.”
One manifestation of this effort emerged in the sharp dispute that erupted last week between Lebanese Defense Minister Michel Mousa and the prime minister, following the parliamentary approval of an amnesty law.
Mousa objected to several provisions of the law that grant amnesty to militants who killed Lebanese soldiers, and requested that the army’s position be presented before parliament. However, Saad Hariri prevented him from appearing before parliament, justifying this by stating that the army’s position or that of the defense minister cannot be presented separately from the government’s position.
The public dispute turned into a sectarian squabble, with claims that Hariri, a Sunni, is providing cover for Sunni Islamists, and is not allowing Mousa, a Christian, to present a different stance.
From here, the path to the accusation leveled by Hezbollah’s representatives—who were absent from the parliamentary session—against the prime minister was short. They argued that anyone who releases prisoners who had killed Lebanese soldiers cannot demand that the army move against Hezbollah.
The question of whether Shia soldiers would remain loyal if ordered to confront Hezbollah elements is one of the most sensitive issues. Hezbollah does not hesitate to exploit this sensitive nerve, portraying it as a threat that could derail its disarmament plan.
In light of this threat, the Lebanese government will attempt to persuade the United States to agree to a gradual disarmament process, running parallel to Israel’s phased withdrawal from areas where the likelihood of direct confrontation is expected to be limited.
However, given Israel’s insistence that any withdrawal be conditional on Hezbollah’s disarmament, it is doubtful that an agreement leading to a genuine breakthrough will be reached in the near future.
According to Haaretz, the open question remains: How much flexibility will Trump show toward Lebanon, and what will he impose on Israel?
Will the US president agree to a flexible formula similar to the understandings reached regarding the disarmament of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, or to the process currently managed by the Iraqi government with militias, thereby allowing the Lebanese government to implement the remaining provisions of the framework agreement?
