Lebanon’s opening demand will be singular and clear on Tuesday when it enters direct talks with Israel, a Lebanese political source with knowledge of the scheduled Washington meeting told The National.
The Lebanese ambassador is “there to make one statement, consisting of two words: ‘Cease. Fire’,” the political source said. “That’s what she’s there to demand on behalf of the Lebanese government. This is the preface for starting negotiations.”
The ambassador, Nada Hamadeh Moawad, is set to meet her Israeli counterpart, Yechiel Leiter, in Washington in an effort to negotiate a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel, as Israeli strikes on Lebanon continue unabated. If an armistice is agreed, it could pave the way for peace talks.
Despite the exceptional nature of the talks, western diplomatic and political sources told The National the outcome was likely to remain limited.
“The meeting in Washington, despite its strong symbolism as a direct political contact between Lebanon and Israel, will be largely procedural. The optics of the meeting itself will carry more weight than any expected outcomes,” a parliamentary source close to Hezbollah and its ally, the Amal movement, told The National.
The parliamentary source said Lebanon’s ceasefire demand was not likely to be met – and could well leave it in the very position it has tried to avoid, of negotiating under Israeli fire.
“As we see it, this track will lead to internal tension because it shifts the burden on to Lebanon,” the source said. Israel has advanced its invasion of south Lebanon while simultaneously agreeing to negotiate with the Lebanese government – a deeply unpopular move in a country which has technically been at war with Israel since 1949.
No leverage
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday told troops sent into south Lebanon that the fight was far from over, even as Lebanon attempted to win commitments from Israel to pause fighting. For Israel, anything short of disarming Hezbollah is unlikely to sway it to stop its attacks. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s government cannot disarm Hezbollah while it is under Israeli attack.
Lebanese officials have insisted that the country will not be negotiating under fire, aware that direct talks with Israel would spark backlash from the Shiite community – more than a million of whom are displaced, while the south of the country is pounded and invaded – as well as other parts of Lebanon's society.
Instead, it has framed the meeting as a “preliminary” contact in a bid to mitigate domestic tensions.
The Lebanese state has been left with little leverage as Israel applies maximum military pressure. Israel has been bombing Lebanon’s infrastructure throughout the war, and dramatically expanded its attacks to the heart of Beirut on April 8 in a series of simultaneous attacks, killing more than 350 people across the country, in one of Lebanon’s bloodiest days since its civil war ended in 1990.
Hezbollah has also firmly rejected talks without a ceasefire and is likely not to comply as ground fighting is raging in southern Lebanon. A political source close to Hezbollah denounced an “unnecessary” step that “lacks both popular and legal legitimacy”.
They said Lebanese demands should include an “immediate ceasefire”: Israel's withdrawal from the south, the full release of our prisoners, the return of displaced people to their villages without any obstacles and the start of reconstruction – demands which it refused to meet during a 2024 ceasefire which proved to be one-sided. Despite the truce, Israel struck south Lebanon on a daily basis, preventing the return of tens of thousands to their land, and refused to withdraw from at least five point within Lebanese territory.
“Any Lebanese position short of that is not recognised,” they added.
Few options
As Lebanon’s officials scramble to reach a ceasefire faced with a massive displacement crisis, roughly one fifth of the population, and raising civilian casualties, Lebanon is left with few options.
“It is a very fine line to navigate,” a western diplomat told The National, while welcoming “a show of goodwill from the Lebanese side to engage with the American administration”.
“If one had to characterise this meeting, it is a step, limited, but preferable to inaction. It demonstrates that there is a functioning Lebanese government willing to engage,” they added.
The diplomat said that the April 8 massacre had created a momentum for Lebanon to put forward its demands. “There is, without doubt, a before and after April 8 in the way this crisis is viewed in western capitals. The scale and nature of the events were deeply shocking across diplomatic circles.”
The events sparked a perceptible “shift” in Washington, according to them. “The willingness of the US to engage within this format suggests a recognition of the efforts made by the Lebanese authorities, even as the US is facing broader geopolitical pressures,” he said, referring to the US-Iran faltering talks.
Lebanese officials have widely condemned Hezbollah's decision to join the war as “unilateral” and have outlawed the group's military wing in an unprecedented move.
But a long-term ceasefire remains a long way ahead. The diplomat cited “existing” frameworks between the two countries, the 1949 Armistice Agreement which ended the first Arab Israeli war, and UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel.
“At this stage, all options remain open, but as of now, it is far too early,” they said.
