Lebanon, Israel Direct Negotiations

Lebanese officials have for so long said that Lebanon would be “the last to sign” a peace treaty with Israel. Even politicians opposed to Hezbollah used to repeat this mantra.

In August 2006, after a 33-day war between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli prime minister then Ehud Barak called for a peace agreement with Lebanon. The Lebanese Prime Minister at that time Fouad Siniora rejected any direct contacts with Israeli officials and told the media that Lebanon would be the last to sign a peace deal with Israel.

Today, the Lebanese debate over direct negotiations with Israel is resurfacing after years of indirect talks – the latest during the cease-fire negotiations, and before that, during the maritime border demarcation agreement with Israel. These deals took place with an American mediator and in the presence of UNIFIL and France.

Recently, the U.S. envoy to Syria and current ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, reportedly urged the Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to contact the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly and negotiate with him – especially after the Lebanese government failed to meet its commitment to disarm Hezbollah. This failure, according to reports, has prompted Israel to threaten large-scale military action in Lebanon to “finish the job.”

Consequently, signs have emerged that Lebanon might be ready to negotiate with Israel. It’s been reported that political and diplomatic figures will join the technical Lebanese delegation that is coordinating with the Israelis as part of  the mechanism to implement the cease-fire agreement under American and French auspices. Sources familiar with these developments told MBN that “Lebanese officials are eager to negotiate, and that adding a political or diplomatic component to the negotiating team (within the mechanism) is possible.”

The same sources said that Lebanese officials strongly prefer indirect talks with Israel through the Americans – similar to the maritime border negotiations – where both Lebanese and Israeli negotiators would be present in the same location while the Americans go between. However, the format of the talks remains a key point of contention between Beirut and Washington: Lebanese authorities insist on indirect negotiations, while a U.S. source told MBN that “the Americans prefer direct talks.”

Throughout this week, American officials are expected to arrive in Lebanon with a message emphasizing the need for the Lebanese government to take the disarmament issue seriously, according to a U.S. source. The goal, the source said, is “to keep up the pressure while remaining realistic about what the Lebanese government can actually do.”

A Lebanese source said officials in Beirut “don’t know who to talk to” on the American side. The source added that “Tom Barrack is no longer in charge of the Lebanese file, Morgan Ortagus not actively engaged, and the new ambassador hasn’t yet assumed his post.”

According to political analyst and writer Youssef Diab, the visit last Sunday by a U.S. Treasury delegation headed by Deputy Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism Dr. Sebastian Gorka “did not focus solely on issues related to financing terrorism and countering money-laundering, but also on Hezbollah’s disarmament.” Diab told Alhurra that Western reports indicate that “a deadline until the end of this year has been set for Lebanon to show tangible progress on that front.”

The American delegation assured the Lebanese President Joseph Aoun of Washington’s readiness to assist Lebanon in achieving security and stability in the south, support the army in extending state authority over all Lebanese territory, eliminate armed manifestations, and enable legitimate security forces to fully perform their duties.

Lebanese sources, however, believe that disarming Hezbollah will take time. They say “a two-month deadline until the end of the year is unrealistic. Israel spent more than two years and caused massive destruction in Gaza without being able to eliminate Hamas or solve its weapons problem.”

According to the same sources, Lebanese officials believe that opening negotiations with Israel would strengthen their standing with the Americans, demonstrate Lebanese cooperation, and send goodwill signals. It could also create space for mutual understandings between the Lebanese and Israeli sides. The Lebanese presidency reportedly wants to convey to Israel that its actions could be counterproductive, strengthening Hezbollah and undermining the Lebanese state.

Since Syria under Al-Sharaa has already begun direct talks with Israel, the sources said Lebanese officials realize Lebanon is falling behind on the negotiation track – and that the “train may depart without them if they don’t board at the next station.” Although the Lebanese president and government still insist on indirect negotiations, the sources add that “this position could change in the future.”

Rejecting direct negotiations was common during Syria’s Baathist regime’s control of Lebanon (1990–2005). Lebanon’s fate was tied to Syria’s through the concept of “unity of course and destiny,” meaning that Lebanon’s negotiating path would follow Damascus’s.

Yet, while Syria’s Hafez al-Assad held direct talks with the Israelis – including a 2000 meeting between Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in the U.S., mediated by President Bill Clinton – Lebanon refrained from any direct negotiations with Israel. It adhered instead to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (Beirut), which called for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace conditioned on Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 borders, including the Syrian Golan Heights, and the recognition of a two-state solution. To this day, these conditions remain unmet.

Historically speaking, Lebanon did engage in direct negotiations with Israel in 1983 and– amid the unsettling political and security circumstances of the civil war, did actually reach a peace agreement which was signed on May 17 of that year. The Lebanese cabinet approved the deal and sent it to parliament, where 65 MPs supported it, two opposed, and 19 were absent. But due to the lack of national consensus, the agreement quickly collapsed amid political and sectarian opposition and was formally annulled in 1987.