Historic Lebanon-Israel talks: A no-win situation?

Currently, diplomatic efforts are running parallel to ongoing violence. In mid-April in Washington, historic talks between Israel and Lebanon took place for the first time since 1993. Officially, the two nations have been at war since 1948.

But at the same time, fighting is continuing in southern Lebanon, as it has done to various degrees for decades. Members of the military wing of local group, Hezbollah, — which considers Israel an enemy and which has strong support in southern Lebanon — have previously fired rockets into Israel.

Israel has frequently bombed southern Lebanon and recently set up what it calls a "security buffer zone" but which its critics describe as an occupation. Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist organization by Israel, the US and Germany, among others, is now fighting Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon.

Despite this, the Lebanon-Israel talks are seen as progress by many observers.

Power imbalances and absences 

However, there is a major problem with them, says Hanna Voss, who works at the Beirut office of Germany's Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

Hezbollah isn't involved in those talks — even though it is one of the parties to the conflict, she says. That limits the chances of success from the outset, Voss says, and calls into question the legitimacy of any potential outcome.

Hezbollah, which is supported by Iran but also embedded deeply in Lebanese society and politics, has refused to negotiate directly with Israel.

On Monday this week, Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem said the group supports "indirect negotiation diplomacy" only because direct negotiations only serve Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, shortly before the US mid-term elections.

Observers say there is also another problem. "The political power and military capabilities of the negotiating sides are completely different in nature," explains Stefan Lukas, chief executive of a Berlin-based consultancy, Middle East Minds.

Israel possesses what is known as "escalation potential" and is using it, Lukas told DW.

"Diplomacy presupposes a certain degree of autonomy for the negotiating parties," Hussein el Mouallem, program director at the Lebanon office of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, wrote in an April analysis for the German journal, International Politics and Society.

But the Lebanon-Israel talks "are taking place in an environment characterized by imbalances," he said.

Which is why, "the current direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel by no means represent a transition to peace but rather reflect a disturbing dynamic: the entrenchment of power imbalances under the guise of diplomacy," el Mouallem argued.

Israel‑Hezbollah ceasefire holds despite sporadic clashes

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Weak Lebanese military

"Who exactly is 'Lebanon' anyway?" asks Lukas. The government lacks a strong power base of its own while Hezbollah remains a key player and can act independently, he says.

Despite recent losses, many experts believe that Hezbollah's military wing is likely still stronger than the Lebanese national army itself. This is even though the Lebanese army is supposed to help disarm Hezbollah.

"Basically, the Lebanese state has no leverage," Voss confirms.

Israel and the US want Hezbollah disarmed, but that will be almost impossible to implement under the current circumstances. Israel is making progress in negotiations and a ceasefire contingent on conditions that Lebanon can't really meet without destabilizing itself, Voss points out.

There is also external pressure, the experts say, which weakens Lebanon further. The US supports Israel while Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, pursue their own interests and further restrict the already-weak government in Beirut.

"The country is caught between several camps and barely able to act," Voss notes.

"Washington is exerting massive pressure," Lukas says. But Iran also sees the problems inside Lebanon strategically. "Iran knows how to influence the negotiations with minimal effort," he explains, which makes Lebanon a stage for larger regional conflict, too. 

Tensions high between Lebanon and Israel despite ceasefire

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Changing opinions on Hezbollah

Hezbollah is a factor in the negotiations in two ways. It is a military adversary for Israel, but at the same time, it also has a social and political wing, with significant representation in the multi-confessional Lebanese parliament and deep roots in Lebanese society, especially among the Shiite Muslim demographic.

"It is deeply embedded in society," Voss notes. This gives Hezbollah political influence and, at the same time, makes it difficult to control.

However, its role in Lebanese society in general has become increasingly controversial.

Lukas describes Hezbollah's reputation as "mixed" and work by the US-based research organization Arab Barometer paints a similar picture.

Twenty-eight percent of Lebanese surveyed by Arab Barometer say their top priority would be ending Israel's presence in Lebanon, while a further 20% say theirs would involve disarming non-state actors, meaning Hezbollah. Rejection of Israel and skepticism about Hezbollah coexist in Lebanon and reflect internal demographic and social divisions.

Many people in southern Lebanon have little hope that the talks in Washington will deliver. 

"I don't believe the Lebanese government can bring my country back," says Hanaa Zalghout, whose village in the south has been occupied by the Israeli army; her house there was also destroyed by the Israelis. "Even if there is a deal, I worry it will come at the expense of my village."

Local farmer Ahmad Ismail also sees the current situation as hopeless. "I will only ever see my home again in my dreams," he laments. "If they want to resolve this, it will be at the cost of our lives."

Will Israeli forces stay in Lebanon? 

Israel argues that Hezbollah fighters must withdraw permanently from areas south of Lebanon's Litani River to prevent the militia from attacking northern Israel. This is why Israel has set up its "security buffer zone" inside Lebanon, between 5 and 10 kilometers (3 to 6 miles) from the shared border.

Observers suggest Israel may be tempted to accomplish through a de facto occupation what the Lebanese army is incapable of.

"If Israel isn't forced to withdraw, it would likely establish a so-called buffer zone permanently," Voss explains. That basically creates facts on the ground that will be almost impossible to reverse.

Statements by Israeli government officials partially support that. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right politician, has repeatedly raised the possibility of territorial reorganization in Israel's favor. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hasn't ruled out a long-term military presence either and has said several times that Israel will remain in the security zone in the longer term.

Does this mean Israeli annexation of Lebanon is imminent? It can't be ruled out, Voss says: "Israel is using the language of security to create territorial facts on the ground." That is a pattern that's been observed in other conflict zones, too, she adds.

For the Lebanese government, this means trouble — even if talks in Washington end in a peace treaty or something similar — because both Israel and Hezbollah could use force to make sure Beirut can't comply with any agreement and is caught in the crossfire.

With additional reporting by Sara Hteit in Lebanon.

This story was originally published in German.

Strikes in Lebanon raise questions over attacks on medics

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video