On April 24, the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors in Washington met in the Oval Office in the presence of US President Donald Trump. This was their second meeting, and Mr Trump’s interest perhaps indicated he saw an advantage in pushing for negotiations that drew attention away from his much-criticised war with Iran.
During the meeting, the US President announced a three-week extension of the ceasefire in Lebanon, adding in a Truth Social post that he would host Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House “in the near future”. However, on May 4, Mr Aoun stated that there would be no meeting with Mr Netanyahu before a security agreement with Israel and an end to Israeli attacks.
The President has sought to avoid such a meeting, because it would cause him problems at home – where Israel is pursuing its systematic destruction of Lebanese villages, and where a significant portion of the population remains very uncertain about talks with Israel.
As things move quickly, a major problem Lebanon has is that there is disarray among its political leadership, which is affecting preparations for potential negotiations with Israel. At the centre of this is the relationship between Mr Aoun and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. Mr Aoun has been more open than the Speaker to talks with Israel. Mr Berri, the senior Shiite representative in the state, has sought to preserve his relationship with Hezbollah, which strongly opposes negotiating with the Israelis, and with his own community, whose areas are being devastated.
Because of the sectarian Lebanese system, the President will be unable to forge ahead with negotiations if a major component of society – the Shiite community and its leading representatives – reject them. For example, until now Mr Berri has refused to name a Shiite figure to a prospective negotiating team, which means both the Speaker and Hezbollah could argue that the Lebanese side is unrepresentative.
However, unless Mr Aoun and Mr Berri reach a compromise, Lebanon will be unable to agree to a strategy for such talks, or indeed the terms of reference for negotiations. Certain Arab states have been pushing Lebanese leaders to bury their differences and, at all costs, seek to avoid communal conflict over the talks. Without an understanding that guarantees the appointment of a representative Shiite figure to the negotiating team, it’s difficult to imagine how progress can take place.
Yet it is doubtful Mr Berri seeks to torpedo Mr Aoun’s plans entirely. His interests and those of Hezbollah may diverge here. If negotiations were derailed, the Israelis would rapidly escalate the conflict and widen the security zone they have started imposing in southern Lebanon. Mr Berri realises this would be disastrous for his community, and would negatively affect his own power and credibility.
The Speaker also understands his value is to be an interlocutor between the Trump administration and Hezbollah. Unless he can nudge the group in a direction that can, if not satisfy the Americans and Israelis, at least neutralise them, his role could become superfluous. It might even be tempting for Israel to eliminate him.
When the Israelis bombed Beirut massively on April 8, it was not lost on Mr Berri that they targeted the neighbourhood where his private residence is located. This came on the same day that they assassinated officials in the Speaker’s Amal Movement, leaving no doubt in his mind that Israel was sending him a message.
Therefore, ultimately Mr Aoun and Mr Berri have a stake in collaborating on negotiations, and this can be done if the latter do not cross the Speaker’s red lines. Mr Berri would likely not oppose negotiations focused on giving Israel security guarantees in the border area – specifically negotiating an updated version of the Lebanese-Israeli Armistice Agreement of 1949 – and delineating the Lebanese-Israeli border.
This is not something Hezbollah would favour, nor Iran. Israel, in turn, wants much more, namely to push Lebanon into a full peace agreement, along the lines of the Abraham Accords. The difficulty for all sides, however, is that everyone needs to buy time to find a solution for Hezbollah’s weapons, and for now neither the Israelis nor the Lebanese have a realistic solution.
Mr Berri may be wagering on Arab intervention to address this issue. A number of Arab states, notably Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have been active in Lebanon lately, seeking to calm domestic tensions, and they’ve enrolled Mr Berri in their efforts. There has been some speculation that Hezbollah can be disarmed only through some broader Arab-Iranian deal in which the group surrenders its weapons in exchange for concessions within the Lebanese political system.
Not surprisingly, the Speaker could see in this an opening to play a major role in altering Lebanese politics to the Shiite community’s advantage. However, this does not change the fact that the major challenge for the Lebanese today is ending Israel’s relentless destruction of their country. That means Lebanon must go to negotiations unified and with cards in hand. For the moment neither condition seems available.
