The ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel is entering what may be its most fragile moment yet after Israeli media reported a two-week window to reach a deal or face intensified military operations targeting Hezbollah.
The signal, delivered through Israeli media rather than official channels, has left officials and analysts in Beirut asking: Is this strategic pressure—or the first sign the truce could soon collapse?
Israel’s public broadcaster cited an Israeli source as saying Lebanon had been given two weeks to make progress in negotiations, adding that Israel is preparing to resume “fighting and intensive operations” if no results are achieved.
The development comes after a ceasefire brokered by the United States on April 16 took effect for 10 days during the first round of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel in Washington. It was later extended until May 17, according to an announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump following a second round of meetings at the White House.
Political analyst Elias Zoghbi said the two-week period mentioned in Israeli media does not contradict the three-week extension of the truce, suggesting it is part of “diplomatic and media pressure tools ahead of any third meeting, and possibly before moving to more advanced political and diplomatic negotiations.”
Zoghbi told Alhurra that Israel often uses media leaks to shape the political climate ahead of official positions.
His remarks align with comments from a source at the Lebanese presidency, who told Alhurra that no official notification had been received regarding the Israeli report. The source said the agreed ceasefire spans three weeks, one of which has already passed, leaving two weeks remaining, adding that the Israeli remarks “offer nothing new.”
An official government source also confirmed that no formal notice had been received, noting that the negotiations file is being handled through the presidency.
The source added that any agreement would first require a permanent ceasefire, followed by an Israeli withdrawal, the return of prisoners, the return of displaced people, and the start of reconstruction.
Meanwhile, the Israeli military’s chief of staff said Wednesday that “there is no ceasefire on the fighting front,” adding that operations would continue to eliminate threats to northern communities and that Israel would remove “any threat in any location,” including beyond the so-called Yellow Line or north of the Litani River.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar linked any Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory to the establishment of an “effective authority” by the Lebanese government and army, saying current conditions do not meet that requirement.
Zoghbi said that when Israel speaks of an “agreement,” it refers to “security measures leading to resolving Hezbollah’s weapons,” describing it as a key condition for any field arrangements along the border, including Israeli withdrawal and other steps.
He added that Israel would not accept “withdrawal, the release of prisoners, the return of displaced people, and the start of reconstruction”—conditions set in advance by Hezbollah—before reaching an agreement with Lebanon under U.S. supervision regarding the fate of the weapons and how to address them.
On Lebanon’s ability to meet Israel’s demands, the presidency source said, “Lebanon has not yet received clear demands. We are only reading statements and declarations.”
On the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons, the source stressed that “the priority at this stage is to stabilize the ceasefire and begin negotiations,” noting that “each phase has its own approach.”
A Lebanese government source, however, said the official position is clear, while awaiting “proof of good faith” from the Israeli side.
Zoghbi described the two-week period as “a period of urging, not a deadline for resolution,” adding: “It is unreasonable for an agreement to be reached overnight, especially given complex and accumulated field and political issues spanning decades.”
He suggested the period is intended for “detailed discussions and the development of a practical framework to resolve the core issue, namely Hezbollah’s weapons.”
The situation was further complicated after Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said he had coordinated his negotiating steps with the speaker of parliament and the prime minister, “contrary to what is being reported in the media.”
Aoun added that criticism claiming Lebanon had agreed, through a U.S. statement issued after trilateral talks in Washington, to grant Israel freedom to continue its attacks is inaccurate. He said the language appeared in a statement issued by the U.S. Department of State and was identical to wording adopted in November 2024 and previously approved by all parties, noting that it was a statement, not an agreement, since agreements are reached only after negotiations conclude.
However, the media office of parliament speaker Nabih Berri responded with a statement saying the president’s remarks regarding the November 2024 understanding and the negotiation process were “inaccurate.”
Zoghbi said U.S., Arab, and European pressure on Hezbollah, on Berri, and even on Iran could support the Lebanese state’s position.
Despite that, he warned that Lebanon “does not have the luxury of maneuvering or buying time,” adding that any avoidance of confronting illegal weapons could create conditions for a broader war in which any ceasefire collapses and negotiations halt—“the worst-case scenario for Lebanon.”
On Wednesday, President Trump reaffirmed efforts to prevent the collapse of the ceasefire in Lebanon over the next two weeks and beyond, saying Iran had “destroyed Lebanon through its arm,” in reference to Hezbollah, according to Israel’s Channel 12.
Caught between Israeli deadline pressure, reliance on U.S. mediation, and internal divisions, Lebanon now faces a two-week period that could determine whether the truce evolves into a settlement or proves to be a brief pause before a new and more intense round of fighting.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
