Amid ongoing military escalation and political statements that open the door to multiple possibilities, Lebanon stands at a delicate crossroads between war and diplomacy.
With Lebanon proposing the option of direct negotiations with Israel to stop the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Thursday that he had instructed the launch of direct negotiations with Lebanon “as soon as possible.” He said the talks would focus on disarming Hezbollah and establishing peaceful relations between the two countries, adding that he had tasked the smaller security cabinet with advancing this process rapidly.
Netanyahu also stressed that “there will be no ceasefire in Lebanon before security is achieved in northern Israel.”
On the ground, the Israeli army issued escalatory messages. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir said during a tour in southern Lebanon that “Lebanon is the main battlefield for us now.” The Israeli army said Zamir conducted a field assessment and approved future military plans with commanders of the Northern Command.
The Lebanese Approach
After any direct negotiation with Israel was long considered a political red line, President Joseph Aoun presented his political initiative on March 9 in an attempt to prevent a slide into a wider war.
In this context, Aoun called for international support for an integrated process that begins with the establishment of a comprehensive truce, includes logistical support for the Lebanese Armed Forces, the deployment of the army in areas of tension, and simultaneous efforts to dismantle Hezbollah weapons depots, according to available information.
The Lebanese proposal also includes launching direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel under international sponsorship, aimed at agreeing on implementation mechanisms for these steps and consolidating lasting stability along the border.
For his part, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam outlined elements of the government’s approach to stopping the war and addressing its political, security, and humanitarian repercussions. In an interview with L’Orient-Le Jour, he said Lebanon is open to various forms of negotiation to end the conflict, while maintaining its commitment to restricting weapons to state authority.
A Lebanese official source told Alhurra that political forces, including Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, favor engaging in any negotiations if a ceasefire is reached first, with consensus among the three presidents on the principle.
In the same context, sources at the presidential palace told Alhurra that “the current priority is reaching a truce similar to the model that took place between Washington and Tehran, in preparation for moving to negotiations, while the Lebanese negotiating terms would be discussed later.”
Agriculture Minister Dr. Nizar Hani told Alhurra that “the condition for any negotiation, according to the Lebanese initiative, is a ceasefire first before moving to any negotiating track.”
In the first response from Hezbollah to the proposal of direct negotiations with Israel, Hezbollah MP Ali Fayad called on the Lebanese government on Thursday to “adhere to a ceasefire as a precondition before moving to any subsequent step,” stressing rejection of any direct negotiations.
He emphasized the “need to adhere to national principles, foremost among them full Israeli withdrawal, cessation of hostilities, and the return of residents to their villages and towns.”
The Challenge of Hezbollah’s Weapons
The issue of Hezbollah’s weapons is one of the main conditions Israel places at the core of any potential negotiations.
In response to questions about the Lebanese government’s ability to disarm these weapons, Hani said that “the political decision has already been taken,” noting that “the government has taken advanced steps, but they have not received the necessary level of international support.”
He added that the Lebanese army has begun implementing these decisions with modest capabilities, benefiting from limited support from some partners, particularly in logistics and equipment. However, he said the process requires much greater support, which is being requested by both the government and the army.
Hani pointed out that regional developments, particularly the Iranian-American negotiation track, “could be a contributing factor in helping Lebanon make progress on this issue.”
In contrast, presidential palace sources said the issue “is directly linked to the negotiation process and its developments if it begins.”
Regarding the identity of the Lebanese negotiating delegation, presidential palace sources said names have not yet been determined, noting that they are awaiting a preparatory meeting expected to be held at the U.S. State Department, with the participation of Lebanon’s ambassador to Washington, in order to define the framework and format of the negotiations.
Regarding Lebanon’s conditions for a peace agreement with Israel, Hani said the issue “is being discussed through negotiations,” adding that “negotiations will determine the details and conditions that both parties must adhere to, while Lebanon’s constants remain Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the release of Lebanese prisoners, and an end to daily attacks.”
These diverging positions reflect a clear gap between the two sides, as Israel pushes for negotiations under military pressure, while Lebanon insists on a ceasefire as a mandatory entry point to any political process.
Amid ongoing military escalation and domestic political tensions, the future of these calls remains dependent on the course of international contacts.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
