When Winston Churchill coined his famous 1954 maxim about how “meeting jaw to jaw is better than war”, it was unclear if it was applicable to a conflict as asymmetrical as that involving Lebanon and Israel today.
As Lebanese officials prepare for groundbreaking talks with Israeli counterparts in Washington today, they will have seen Sunday’s images of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Israel Katz and army chief of staff Lt Gen Eyal Zamir illegally crossing into Lebanon to meet their soldiers in the occupied south.
Such pictures will not be easy to stomach for Lebanon’s officials - or its people. Its territory has been relentlessly bombed by its southern neighbour, more than a million Lebanese are thought to have been displaced, land up to the Litani River has been seized and Mr Katz has threatened that Israel’s tactics in Gaza would be repeated in southern Lebanon.
This is not an auspicious prelude to direct negotiations between two countries that are still technically at war. Talking to Israeli leaders is an unpopular choice for Lebanon’s government – only last week, Israeli strikes killed and injured hundreds of Lebanese civilians in densely populated residential areas of Beirut.
In addition, Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group, is also threatening Lebanon’s elected leaders. The group has escalated its rhetoric against Lebanon’s political leadership, making unacceptable statements about its ability to overturn the country and make “traitors” pay. For an organisation linked to the assassination of former prime minister Rafic Hariri in 2005, such statements carry considerable menace.
However, despite all this, today’s meeting at the US State Department could still act as a much-needed diplomatic circuit breaker. Up until now, there has been no direct talks process between Beirut and Israel. Face-to-face engagement will force political and security realities to the fore. Should the two sides reach an agreement on an Israeli cessation of attacks, it will be up to Israel to honour it – and it will be clear where the blame should lie were either it or Hezbollah to restart the conflict.
What Lebanon’s leadership needs is meaningful support from the rest of the Middle East and the wider international community. It is a government that is already confronted by systemic economic problems, a humanitarian crisis and the mammoth task of dealing with Hezbollah’s destabilising state within a state. If engagement with Israel is to be a dialogue of equals, Beirut needs leverage; that can come only with the backing of international friends and allies.
As the world has seen with the failed US-Iran talks in Islamabad, it is unrealistic to think that a first meeting alone will be conclusive. However, today’s talks in Washington represent an important first step, albeit one taking place amid a backdrop of much destruction and human suffering. Churchill’s role in shaping the modern Middle East may have been deeply problematic but his “jaw to jaw” insight was right. For the sake of Lebanon’s long-suffering people, it must be hoped that it is an insight that takes root at today’s talks.
