A Lebanese government source told Alhurra that the “next phase will include measures and decisions targeting institutions tied to Hezbollah’s financial network,” signaling that U.S.-mediated talks between Lebanon and Israel are expanding beyond the ceasefire along the border.
The official, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations, said the continued escalation between Hezbollah and Israel was creating additional complications for the talks, particularly as Israeli strikes widen across parts of Lebanon.
Although the ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel was extended for an additional 45 days, the agreement has yet to produce lasting calm. Israel and Hezbollah continue to exchange fire, while thousands of displaced residents remain unable to return to border towns and villages devastated by the war or now located inside areas Israel considers vital to its security.
The extension followed a round of talks in Washington aimed at preventing the collapse of the truce and keeping diplomatic channels open between the two sides. But the most difficult issues remain unresolved, chief among them the future of Israeli forces inside Lebanese territory and whether the Lebanese state is capable — or willing — to impose meaningful restrictions on Hezbollah’s weapons in the south.
In a statement issued after meetings held April 14 and 15 in Washington, the Lebanese delegation said trilateral talks with the United States and Israel had achieved “tangible diplomatic progress” for Lebanon. It described the extension of the ceasefire and the launch of a U.S.-sponsored security track as an opportunity for Beirut to contain the escalation and strengthen state institutions.
The negotiations are expected to resume in early June, preceded by separate security meetings between Lebanese and Israeli officers at the Pentagon on May 29.
Negotiations Under Fire
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has outlined five pillars for negotiations with Israel: the withdrawal of Israeli forces, enforcement of the ceasefire, deployment of the Lebanese army along the border, the return of displaced civilians, and economic and financial assistance for Lebanon.
But the same Lebanese government source told Alhurra that the most important proposal Beirut is bringing to the talks is a “peace in exchange for Lebanon’s demands” framework — an attempt to shift negotiations from a narrowly defined security discussion into a broader political process.
According to the source, Lebanon is relying on international law and its sovereign rights over its territory, while Israel enters the negotiations from a position of strength, backed by military superiority and broad international support that gives it greater room to maneuver.
Political analyst Nidal al-Sabaa told Alhurra that the ceasefire extension was not unexpected, arguing that Washington, as the chief sponsor of the negotiations, was unlikely to push forward with a political process while the truce itself was collapsing.
Sabaa said the first day of meetings appeared tense, amid reports that negotiations were becoming increasingly complicated, before signs emerged of limited progress through the launch of two parallel tracks — one security-related and the other political.
Political analyst Khaled al-Hajj said indications that the truce would be extended had existed even before the meetings began, largely because of Washington’s desire to contain the escalation and prevent the conflict from widening.
Hajj said details of the negotiations remain unclear because no official records have been released and much of the reporting relies on leaks. Still, he added, the demands of both sides have become largely apparent.
The Weapons Dilemma
Behind the fragile calm, Hezbollah’s arsenal remains the most difficult issue in any negotiation between Lebanon and Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the talks with Lebanon involve “how to act politically and militarily in dealing with Hezbollah,” adding that this objective “has not yet been achieved.”
For its part, Hezbollah renewed its rejection of direct negotiations with Israel, saying such talks would “enhance and expand Israeli gains at the expense of Lebanon and its people.”
The Lebanese government source said that “any final resolution to the weapons issue is tied to overlapping domestic and regional factors,” adding that the Lebanese state’s position would remain weak as long as final decisions on the matter were linked to Iranian calculations.
According to Sabaa, Israel believes any withdrawal from Lebanese territory must be tied to tangible progress on Hezbollah’s weapons. He said Israel views the Lebanese state’s difficulties in addressing the issue as justification for maintaining a military presence inside what it describes as a security zone.
Sabaa added that one proposal under discussion involves the creation of a special brigade within the Lebanese army composed of personnel not perceived as close to Hezbollah, tasked with security operations south and north of the Litani River.
Hajj argued that the central challenge lies not only in the substance of any future security arrangement, but also in how it would be enforced. The recent conflict, he said, exposed the difficulty of guaranteeing the absence of military infrastructure or weapons depots in southern Lebanon.
“The question now,” Hajj said, “is what the Lebanese state will do differently this time, and what guarantees it can offer to persuade Israel to withdraw from the areas it entered.”
He also referred to reports of Israeli maps presented during the negotiations that allegedly identified Hezbollah-linked sites inside Lebanon. According to Hajj, the Lebanese state will be expected to take practical steps either to prove its ability to reassert sovereignty or to test its willingness to confront Hezbollah over the weapons issue.
A Ceasefire Only on Paper?
Despite the extension, the Lebanese front has remained volatile. Military operations continue, while Israel says it will keep acting as long as it believes the threat along its northern border persists.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said the Israeli military was continuing operations aimed at “protecting northern communities and restoring security to their residents,” adding that Israel would continue acting against any threat until its security objectives were achieved.
Sabaa said Washington is trying to isolate the Lebanese track from broader regional tensions but warned that any large-scale confrontation with Iran would likely spill directly onto the Lebanese front. Hajj, meanwhile, cautioned that failure in the negotiations — or in implementing any security understandings — could trigger a wider escalation inside Lebanon.
For now, Lebanon remains caught between a ceasefire that has yet to produce stability and negotiations still haunted by the same unresolved questions: Who guarantees border security? Who controls the decision over weapons? And when will Israel withdraw from the Lebanese territory it occupies?
Adapted and translated from the original Arabic.
