At a store in Beirut, a shopowner breaks into laughter. “No, I don’t want to comment on the negotiations,” he told Al Jazeera, referring to Thursday evening’s direct talks between Israel and Lebanon in Washington, DC. “If I say the wrong thing, someone might come hit me.”
His response represents the polarization and controversy surrounding the negotiations inside a country deeply divided over the best way to end Israel’s war on it. For some, the negotiations are the Lebanese state’s only choice. Others, however, reject the talks outright and believe only Hezbollah’s path of armed resistance will lead to a positive outcome for Lebanon.
On March 2, Israel intensified its war on Lebanon once again. That came after Hezbollah responded to incessant Israeli attacks for the first time in more than 15 months. Hezbollah said its response was also a retaliation for the Israeli-US killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei two days earlier.
Israel has killed 2,294 people in Lebanon since March 2, including journalists and medics. It has also displaced more than 1.2 million people while expanding its invasion of Lebanon and establishing what it calls a “yellow line” around 10km (6 miles) from the border. Residents are not allowed to return to their homes if they are within that Israeli-claimed buffer zone, and Israel has demolished homes and villages in it.
Al Jazeera visited three towns – al-Mansouri, Majdal Zoun, and Qlaileh – on a tour organized by Hezbollah. The towns were rife with destruction, with buildings reduced to dust and rubble. Thursday’s talks are set to take place while Israel is still on Lebanese land and conducting demolitions and attacks on targets there.
The talks are the first direct negotiations between the two sides in decades and follow an initial meeting on April 14 in Washington, DC. The Lebanese side will ask for an extension to the current ceasefire, which Israel has repeatedly violated, as a precondition for continuing the talks. Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has said his country will also seek a full Israeli withdrawal and the return of Lebanese captives held by Israel.
Hezbollah has rejected the talks. Some believe Iran has more leverage to negotiate on its behalf. Others oppose the talks simply because they believe the Lebanese state has little leverage and because Israel rarely delivers or upholds its end of bargains. “Probably the only deal that’s possible right now is anything that’s very favorable to Israel,” said lawyer Fouad Debs.
Shortly after Hezbollah’s attacks on March 2, the Lebanese government declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal. Hezbollah’s weapons have long been a point of contention in Lebanon. After the 2024 ceasefire, the state vowed to disarm Hezbollah, but critics argue it hasn’t moved fast enough.
“Lebanese history with Israel is full of blood,” Jad Shahrour of the Samir Kassir Foundation told Al Jazeera. He sees negotiations as a first step in the state reasserting its authority over Lebanon. “What options do we have besides this? Do we have any power? No. But did Hezbollah’s way get the desired result? Also, no.”
Most people in Lebanon do not trust the Israelis to be good-faith actors, and do not see the US as a neutral party. The difference then comes down to whether this is the best of all bad options – or if armed resistance, asking Iran to negotiate, or an international approach would be smarter moves. Mohanad Hage Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center wrote that Lebanon should establish its own terms of reference in the negotiations and not alienate itself from a regional bloc that opposes Israel.
Source: www.aljazeera.com