Lebanese citizens did not need much time to realize that their country had once again slipped into war. When Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel in early March, the situation quickly changed: border villages came under bombardment, thousands of families took to the roads in search of safety, and an economy already weighed down by crises began to stagger even further.
Lebanon once again found itself at the heart of a wide military confrontation after Hezbollah opened a front under the banner of “support” for Iran.
Amid this escalation, an unprecedented political proposal emerged inside Lebanon: President Joseph Aoun called for launching a direct negotiating process with Israel under international sponsorship, in an attempt to stop the war and open a window toward a lasting settlement along the border.
However, rather than clearing up the fog, the proposal raised even more complicated questions. Is a settlement still possible after Lebanon has been drawn into the furnace of war? How would Hezbollah deal with a direct negotiating track led by the Lebanese state with Israel? And most importantly, does the Lebanese state actually have the capacity to implement any commitments that might result from potential negotiations?
An Unprecedented Initiative
In Lebanon, any direct negotiation with Israel has long been viewed as a political red line. President Aoun broke with this tradition by presenting his political initiative in an effort to halt the country’s slide toward a broader war.
Aoun called for international support for a comprehensive framework that would include establishing a full ceasefire, providing logistical support to the Lebanese Armed Forces, and deploying the Lebanese army in areas of tension while working to dismantle Hezbollah weapons depots according to available information.
The proposal also includes launching direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel under international sponsorship, with the goal of agreeing on mechanisms to implement these steps and entrench long-term stability along the border.
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam had already outlined the government’s approach to ending the war and dealing with its political, security, and humanitarian repercussions. In an interview with the newspaper L’Orient-Le Jour, he said Lebanon was open to various forms of negotiation to end the conflict, while simultaneously insisting on the principle of restricting weapons to the authority of the state.
Months earlier, Aoun had presented another initiative that failed to gain traction. It was based on gradually removing the justifications for confrontation: Israel would withdraw from at least one point of Lebanese territory, in return for the Lebanese state establishing full control there. International parties would verify the implementation before moving to subsequent stages, eventually leading to “a final agreement to end hostilities and establish permanent security arrangements along the border.”
The Timing Dilemma
Within Lebanese political circles, debate has centered on the timing of proposing a direct negotiating track with Israel. Some observers argue Lebanon should have pursued negotiations before sliding into another war.
In this context, Member of Parliament Ibrahim Mneimneh says Lebanon has reached “an extremely difficult stage” as a result of the delay in restricting weapons to the state’s authority.
Speaking to Alhurra, Mneimneh said the state had called for monopolizing weapons nearly a year and a half ago without resolving the issue. He accused Hezbollah of engaging in significant maneuvering, which he said led to a decline in Lebanon’s credibility on the international stage.
Mneimneh also questioned Lebanon’s ability to make serious commitments in any direct negotiations. He argued that international indicators do not suggest negotiations will begin soon, given the global perception of Lebanon as a weak state lacking sufficient credibility and capacity.
The U.S. news site Axios reported that the Lebanese government asked U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack to mediate with Israel, asserting that some Hezbollah members were open to an agreement. Barrack’s response, according to the report, was firm: the discussion would be meaningless without real movement toward disarming Hezbollah.
Axios also reported that the Israeli government rejected the proposal outright, arguing that it was already too late, as Israel remains focused on a primary objective: eliminating Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, Reuters, citing the Financial Times, reported that Israel had rejected diplomatic initiatives proposed by Lebanon to halt the escalating assault on Hezbollah, insisting that negotiations could only take place “under fire.”
According to the newspaper, talks stalled over the sequence of steps: Beirut demanded a ceasefire before holding any meeting, while the Israeli government wanted to discuss only the possibility of a ceasefire.
The Only Option
Some observers believe negotiations remain the only viable option, even if they are currently rejected, because they are the sole path capable of opening a window to end the war.
Dr. Salim Sayegh, an MP from the Kataeb Party, told Alhurra that the Lebanese state did indeed delay proposing the option of direct negotiations. He argued that this path no longer exists despite the initiative proposed by President Joseph Aoun, but nevertheless called for continuing diplomatic efforts until a crack appears in the wall of this war.
Sayegh believes Lebanon faces a complex equation resembling the classic question: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Israel demands disarmament first, while Hezbollah insists on Israeli withdrawal first. This leaves the country trapped in an almost impossible equation, with the Lebanese state and the Lebanese people as the ultimate victims.
Observers emphasize that negotiations remain indispensable for ending the war, but the issue is no longer only about whether negotiations will happen; timing now matters as much as the negotiations themselves.
MP Nazih Matta, a member of the Strong Republic parliamentary bloc, rejected the idea that it is too late to propose direct negotiations with Israel. “Wars ultimately end at the negotiating table,” he said.
Matta explained to Alhurra that Lebanon entered a negotiating process roughly a year and a half ago in the context of the war, based on the assumption that Hezbollah would abide by any agreements reached. But that did not happen, he said, adding that the party ultimately dragged the country back into war.
Testing the State’s Capacity
The greatest challenge facing any negotiating track is not merely launching it, but whether the parties involved can implement whatever commitments emerge from it.
In this context, the issue of restricting weapons to the state and extending the army’s authority across all Lebanese territory once again comes to the forefront.
This objective has been pursued by the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam as part of implementing the ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel, though it has not yet been fully achieved.
Matta stressed that any negotiations must follow the framework proposed by the president. Lebanon’s priorities, he said, are establishing sovereignty across its entire territory and preventing any interference in its internal affairs, through the creation of a fully functioning state that monopolizes weapons and revitalizes its institutions.
Mneimneh similarly argued that the first step must be restoring the state’s control over military and security decisions. He warned that entering negotiations from a position of weakness could force Lebanon to make major concessions—especially since the opening of the front with Israel was a decision made by Hezbollah while the state appeared unable to enforce its authority on the ground.
Sayegh also expressed concern that Lebanon might ultimately have no choice but to move toward comprehensive negotiations, which would lay out a roadmap for peace addressing security, military, economic, and Palestinian dimensions.
The Hezbollah Dilemma
Hezbollah rejects the idea of negotiations with Israel. Mohammad Raad, head of the party’s parliamentary bloc, said Lebanon today is not choosing between war and peace, but between war and surrender to humiliating conditions that Israel seeks to impose on the Lebanese government.
This position raises questions about the possibility of internal tension if the Lebanese state proceeds with a direct negotiating track.
Matta believes the country has reached a decisive moment: either there will be a state in Lebanon, or there will not.
While he acknowledges the possibility of escalation, he argues that a clear decision by the president, the government, and the army to reinforce the state’s role would prevent attempts to derail the process.
Mneimneh, for his part, believes all possibilities remain open, noting that Hezbollah’s reaction will likely depend on Iran’s position toward any potential negotiating track.
Sayegh ties Hezbollah’s future to the outcome of the war with Iran, questioning whether the group might eventually become part of a broader settlement.
He adds that Hezbollah has attempted to undermine the role of the state in order to present itself as either an alternative authority or a partner with veto power. Such a role was possible in earlier phases, he said, as during the maritime border demarcation and the drawing of the final land border line.
But the equation has changed today, he said, and there is no longer anyone willing to grant it such a role.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
