As Israeli forces push deeper into Lebanese territory, reports are emerging about negotiating channels led, on Israel’s side, by one of the closest confidants of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At first glance, military escalation and the possibility of direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon may appear contradictory. Yet this apparent contradiction may, according to political and analytical indicators, be part of a single Israeli strategy.
According to Lebanon’s National News Agency, the Israeli army on Monday attempted to advance into Lebanese territory from the western sector via Labouneh Hill and along the axes of Ramieh and Marwahin. In the central sector, it moved through the axes of Aitaroun and Maroun al-Ras. On Tuesday, an Israeli force was also observed advancing toward the outskirts of Aita al-Shaab, coinciding with airstrikes carried out by warplanes.
At the same time, Lebanese security sources told Reuters that Israeli forces at the beginning of the week surrounded the strategic southern town of Khiam, located about six kilometers from the Israeli border. The sources said the forces had effectively taken control of the town and were advancing west toward the Litani River. They have also moved toward Bint Jbeil, considered a stronghold of Hezbollah and located roughly four kilometers from the border.
Lebanon’s Ministry of Health announced that the number of people killed in Israeli attacks on Lebanon since March 2 has risen to more than 900.
The expansion of the ground operation, with the Israeli army’s 36th Division joining the 91st Division inside Lebanese territory, reflects a shift in the nature of the confrontation. Israeli leaders are no longer speaking in terms of deterrence or containment, but rather of what the Israeli military calls “expanding the forward defense zone.” In other words, Israel seeks to push the lines of contact deeper into Lebanese territory in order to “remove threats and prevent Hezbollah from returning to the border areas,” according to Israeli officials.
Before advancing into Lebanese territory, the Israeli army intensified its air and artillery strikes in preparation for a ground incursion. Israeli officials are not describing the ground offensive as time-limited; instead, they speak of seeking to reshape the security situation along the border with Lebanon.
A Lebanese ministerial source told Alhurra that “dealing with Israel requires anticipating different scenarios,” stressing that the government’s position is clear in “rejecting any expansion of the war and rejecting Israel’s blatant violations of international humanitarian law and of Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
At the same time, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz escalated his threats toward Lebanon when he openly spoke about destroying infrastructure in Lebanese border villages “as was done in Rafah and Beit Hanoun.” He also linked the return of residents of southern Lebanon to their villages and homes to guarantees for the security of residents in northern Israel.
By contrast, Orna Mizrahi, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, offered a different reading in an interview with Alhurra.
Mizrahi said Israel has no intention of remaining in Lebanon for the long term, but at the same time does not rule out a “temporary or limited presence,” not only for security purposes but also as leverage in any potential negotiating track.
According to Mizrahi, the shift to ground operations followed a conclusion that airstrikes were no longer sufficient to prevent Hezbollah from repositioning inside southern Lebanon. She noted that the group used the past months to redeploy, albeit in a different manner, forcing the Israeli army to advance on the ground “to remove the threat in practice, not merely contain it.”
Regarding Katz’s remarks about destroying villages, Mizrahi explained that villages near the border had already been destroyed in previous rounds of fighting and that Israel seeks to prevent their reconstruction for fear that Hezbollah would return to them. However, she denied that there is any intention to carry out widespread destruction of villages farther from the border, saying the goal is to “eliminate the party’s military presence, house by house and village by village.”
At the same time, Israeli reports reveal parallel movement on the political track. Former minister Ron Dermer, one of Netanyahu’s closest associates, has returned to the forefront after being tasked with managing negotiations with Lebanon.
Dermer, described inside Israel as “the most influential adviser to Netanyahu on international affairs,” is the architect of Israel’s relations with the United States and Gulf countries and played a central role in the Abraham Accords.
In remarks reported Tuesday by the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, Dermer said that “the disputes with Lebanon are not complicated” and that “it is possible to talk about a peace agreement.” At the same time, he stressed that any agreement would not be possible without the disarmament of Hezbollah, adding that Israel “will not return to the situation before October 7 and will not allow a threat to exist on its borders.”
This approach closely aligns with Mizrahi’s remarks in her interview, in which she emphasized the need to link military action with a political track, arguing that the current strikes could create a “historic opportunity” to reach understandings amid Hezbollah’s weakness, the decline of Iranian influence, and the presence of a Lebanese government different from those that ruled in previous years.
Mizrahi goes even further, claiming that there is an “undeclared convergence of interests” between Israel and the Lebanese government, which itself seeks to reduce Hezbollah’s influence but lacks the ability to confront it directly, leaving Israel to carry out the “hard work” on the ground.
Thus, between an Israeli ground incursion into Lebanon and the early signs of a negotiating track forming behind the scenes, the contours of a new phase in the relationship between Israel and Lebanon are beginning to emerge—one that could open the door to different political and security arrangements.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
