������Ƶ

LONDON: As the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza tenuously holds, attention is now shifting north to Lebanon. There, a proposal from President Joseph Aoun for talks to resolve long-standing disputes has been rejected by Israel.

With Israel still occupying five hilltops in Lebanon, airstrikes continuing in the south, and Hezbollah’s disarmament unresolved, the question looms: Are the two countries ready to bury the hatchet?

On Oct. 13, at the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit where US President Donald Trump unveiled the Gaza ceasefire deal, Aoun struck a conciliatory tone. “Today, the general atmosphere is one of compromise, and it is necessary to negotiate,” he said.

Citing the 2022 US- and UN-mediated maritime border agreement between Lebanon and Israel, Aoun said: “Lebanon negotiated in the past with Israel … What prevents repeating the same thing to find solutions to pending matters, especially that war did not lead to results?”

Israel’s response came about a week later. US envoy Tom Barrack conveyed Israel’s rejection of Aoun’s proposal, which called for a two-month halt to Israeli military operations, withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory, and subsequent border and security talks.

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat on Oct. 20 that the proposed negotiations had collapsed.

Barrack, writing on X the same day, warned that unless Lebanon disarms the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia, Israel “may act unilaterally — and the consequences would be grave.”

He added that several US-backed initiatives meant to nudge Lebanon toward peace “have stalled.”

The Lebanese government now finds itself caught between US pressure to disarm Hezbollah and the militia’s firm refusal to do so.

In late September, a year after Israel killed his predecessor Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem reaffirmed the group’s stance.

“We will never abandon our weapons, nor will we relinquish them,” he said, vowing to “confront any project that serves Israel.”

Israel has already escalated its attacks, claiming it is targeting Hezbollah military sites. Hezbollah, meanwhile, has continued to launch sporadic attacks on Israel, though mostly in response to Israeli strikes.

Since October, Lebanon has accused Israel of carrying out multiple strikes in southern Lebanon, despite the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Hezbollah in November last year.

On Oct. 17, UN experts said Israeli strikes were causing civilian casualties and “seriously undermining” Lebanon’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah in the south.

These developments leave observers questioning whether Lebanon and Israel could ever achieve sustainable peace.

“In Lebanon, the idea of making peace with Israel has long been a taboo for many people,” David Wood, senior analyst on Lebanon at the International Crisis Group, told Arab News.

“Many Lebanese still resent Israel’s history of repeatedly occupying and attacking Lebanon, which stretches back decades. In addition, plenty in Lebanon denounce Israel’s brutal treatment of Palestinians, especially in Gaza recently.”

That resentment is rooted in decades of conflict. Israel first invaded southern Lebanon in 1978 to drive out Palestinian militants and establish a buffer zone. A larger invasion followed in 1982, when Israeli forces reached Beirut and occupied much of the south until 2000.

Another war followed in the summer of 2006 after a Hezbollah cross-border raid, sparking a month-long conflict in which Israel invaded Lebanon.

New cycles of cross-border violence reignited on Oct. 8, 2023, after the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel triggered Tel Aviv’s war on Gaza.

Cross-border fire between Hezbollah and Israel escalated in September last year, with Israeli airstrikes decimating Hezbollah’s leadership and killing around 4,000 of its fighters.

Hundreds of Lebanese civilians were also killed and towns and villages devastated. Israel reported the deaths of 75 soldiers and 45 civilians from Hezbollah rocket and drone attacks, sniper fire, and cross-border infiltrations.

Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced on both sides of the border.

Although a ceasefire was reached in November last year, there have been repeated violations by both sides.

The Lebanese Army Command reported more than 4,500 Israeli breaches as of September this year. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has claimed one attack since the truce, AFP reported, although Israel accuses the militia of many more.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry says Israeli actions have killed more than 270 people and wounded about 850 since the truce began. As of Oct. 9, the UN human rights office had verified 107 civilian deaths, including 16 children.

Even so, a number of Lebanese, tired of this cycle of violence, are starting to question the long-standing taboo on seeking peace.

“Some Lebanese do call for their country to reach a peace deal with Israel,” Wood said. “These people argue that Lebanon must prioritize its own national interest and avoid becoming entangled in conflict with Israel, as most recently happened following the Oct. 7 attacks.”

He added: “This week, a widely watched Lebanese talk show host — Marcel Ghanem — spoke of the need to break the taboo over Lebanon making peace with Israel.”IN NUMBERS:

Others, however, see little room for optimism.

Lebanese economist and political adviser Nadim Shehadi believes Beirut should “pick up where it left off in the May 17, 1983, agreement,” which parliament annulled after Israel added conditions not in the original text.

That US-brokered deal sought to end hostilities and secure an Israeli withdrawal, contingent on a simultaneous Syrian pullout that never occurred at the time. The deal collapsed within a year amid Syrian opposition and internal divisions, and parliament annulled it in 1984.

“The Lebanese state should take the initiative,” Shehadi told Arab News. “At the moment, it is implementing an agreement it did not negotiate, for a war it did not participate in, and with conditions it cannot deliver.”

He added that the government’s position is “weak,” saying it “seems to be acting on behalf of Israel and the US.”

The November 2024 agreement between Lebanon and Israel mandates that Israel withdraw from southern Lebanon and that Hezbollah retreat north of the Litani River within 60 days, with the Lebanese army deploying to the border region.

It also reaffirmed both sides’ commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for an area in southern Lebanon free of armed forces other than the Lebanese army.

Shehadi argues that for now, “the maximum achievable under UNSCR 1701 is a ‘cessation of hostilities,’ not even a ceasefire — it is far below the minimum requirement, which is an end of state of war.”

Indirect negotiations over land border demarcation — similar to the US-brokered maritime talks — are the most that can be expected as long as “Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory and carry out nearly daily aggressions on Lebanon,” Rizk told Arab News.

Even if that changed, Rizk said, direct talks would remain unlikely. “The Shiites form the majority in Lebanon and at the same time would overwhelmingly reject such talks, owing to the fact that the Shiites have borne the brunt of Israeli aggressions, not least since Oct. 7, 2023.”

He added: “The assassination of former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah makes it even more difficult, given how he was an icon for many Lebanese Shiites — and non-Shiites — and not just for Hezbollah members.”

Southern Lebanon has long been a Hezbollah stronghold and is predominantly Shiite, with smaller Christian and mixed communities found mainly along the coast and in certain enclaves.

“Given these realities, engaging directly with Israel will be a risky gamble that President Aoun will likely not be willing to take as this would alienate Lebanon’s largest religious sect,” said Rizk.

Recent reports suggest that Aoun and Berri are instead preparing for indirect negotiations, he added.

Indeed, Berri told Asharq Al-Awsat that the present course relies on representatives of the nations that brokered the November 2024 ceasefire.

Beirut-based policy expert Hussein Chokr said the two sides’ objectives remain “fundamentally irreconcilable.”

“A vast gap separates them, making negotiations unlikely unless Israel were to accept Lebanon’s conditions — an improbable scenario at present — or unless the Lebanese presidency were to yield to external pressure, risking a dangerous internal rupture,” he told Arab News.

Chokr said Lebanon views negotiations as a way to halt Israeli aggression and bring about its withdrawal.

He added that Israel has three goals: formal recognition, the dismantling of Hezbollah’s military capacity, and a peace process “on its own unilateral terms — one that does not aim for a just or balanced peace, but rather seeks to impose a new reality through force.”

“This is not peace; it is a demand for submission,” he added.

Chokr argued that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is not seeking a just or reciprocal peace but rather aims to cement a new balance of power with Lebanon where Israel holds the upper hand, capitalizing on what he perceives as strategic gains after inflicting significant damage on Hezbollah.

“His implicit message to Lebanon is: accept peace on my terms or face continued devastation.”

Lebanon, by contrast, insists “any real peace with Israel must be comprehensive and just, anchored in the Arab Peace Initiative launched in Beirut in 2002,” Chokr said.

The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative offers normalization in exchange for Israel’s full withdrawal from Arab territories occupied in 1967 and a Palestinian state along the pre-1967 borders.

But the current Israeli administration “recognizes no such formula of land and rights in exchange for peace,” Chokr said. “It treats ‘peace’ as a concession it grants in return for the other side’s survival — peace in exchange for being spared destruction.”

He warned that entering talks aimed at disarming Hezbollah could deepen Lebanon’s internal divisions and push the country “into a dangerous internal spiral.”

Still, some observers see potential for limited progress.

Wood of the International Crisis Group said Lebanon “is more likely to reach some kind of limited security arrangement with Israel, rather than a deal for peace and full normalization.”

Aoun’s remarks on Oct. 13, he added, “referred to the need for Lebanon to address its immediate problems with Israel.”

“At present, they are Israel’s ongoing occupation and near-daily military attacks, which are directly denying the hopes of displaced Lebanese that they can start rebuilding their communities after the disastrous war.”