Lebanon’s direct talks with Israel are a national necessity

Since the launch of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, the Shiite duo, particularly Hezbollah has missed no opportunity to express its categorical rejection of this path, going as far as accusing President Joseph Aoun of betrayal simply for choosing to pursue this political and diplomatic option.

With every new round of talks, the same question is repeated by the party’s leadership: What have these negotiations achieved? As though any negotiating process is expected to perform miracles overnight, before even being given the chance to prove its viability. Hence the recurring calls for Lebanon to withdraw from the negotiations, in what appears to be a clear attempt to derail this option before its outcomes can materialize. This is particularly notable given that Hezbollah’s insistence on retaining its weapons remains the principal obstacle to advancing the negotiations and achieving the objectives set by Aoun.

Yet beyond slogans and emotional rhetoric, it must be acknowledged that Joseph Aoun’s decision to engage Lebanon in direct negotiations with Israel constitutes a historic turning point in Lebanese political life. It has broken one of the most deeply entrenched taboos that shaped political discourse for decades. More importantly, it adopts the most realistic and effective means of safeguarding Lebanon’s national interest: ending the war, securing Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories, enabling displaced residents to return to their villages, launching reconstruction efforts, and shielding Lebanon from once again sliding into a cycle of devastation.

After years of wars and confrontations, Lebanon can no longer endure further military adventures or hollow slogans. The destruction and the human and economic losses caused by Hezbollah’s weapons make any attempt to open a political and diplomatic horizon not a political luxury, but a national necessity.

Lebanon’s continued participation in direct negotiations with Israel therefore remains, at its core, a choice that serves the national interest, even if the process appears slow or has thus far failed to fully achieve its intended goals. The lack of progress is not solely tied to the nature and complexity of the negotiations themselves, but also to Hezbollah’s continued insistence on maintaining its arms, making it the central obstacle to any viable final settlement.

For this reason, adherence to the negotiating track should not be viewed solely through the lens of immediate gains, but rather as a means of protecting Lebanon from far graver outcomes, for critical political and security considerations.

First, any official Lebanese withdrawal from the negotiations would effectively trigger direct tension in its relationship with the U.S. administration, potentially opening the door to a dangerous shift in Washington’s position regarding the ongoing confrontation. The United States, which until now has continued to impose certain limits and constraints on Israeli military actions in Lebanon, may become less inclined to restrain Tel Aviv should the Lebanese state abandon the political track. In such a scenario, vital Lebanese infrastructure, including the airport, seaport, power stations, and essential public facilities could become significantly more vulnerable to targeting in any future military escalation.

Second, Lebanon’s continued engagement in negotiations grants it a necessary political and diplomatic margin to communicate with Washington and attempt to influence its decisions, whether in containing Israeli military operations or preventing their expansion. More importantly, keeping channels of dialogue open allows Lebanon to demand a more serious American role in addressing the root of the crisis: Hezbollah’s weapons. This would include pressuring Tehran to address Hezbollah’s military structure and arsenal. The United States recognizes that no negotiating process can reach a positive conclusion nor produce a sustainable agreement or genuine peace, so long as the decision of war and peace in Lebanon remains outside the authority of the state. Consequently, placing all weapons exclusively under state control becomes an essential condition for advancing negotiations, restoring Lebanon’s full sovereignty over its territory, ensuring stability along its southern border, opening the way for reconstruction in the south, and rescuing the Lebanese economy from a cycle of perpetual collapse.

Third, the Lebanese state’s continued official participation in the negotiating process in itself reinforces the restoration of its sovereign legitimacy over diplomatic decision-making. More importantly, this option contributes to separating the Lebanese track from the Iranian one, after Lebanon had for years been transformed into a bargaining chip used by Tehran in its regional and international conflicts. Simply having the Lebanese state manage the negotiations means removing this card from Iran’s hands and reaffirming that decisions concerning Lebanon’s future must emanate from Beirut, not from any other capital.

Conversely, Lebanon’s withdrawal from the negotiations would directly serve the interests of Hezbollah and Iran, as it would effectively signify a retreat by the Lebanese state from reclaiming its independent diplomatic decision-making authority. Worse still, it would send a negative message to Washington and the international community that the Lebanese state is incapable of representing itself or negotiating over its own future, thereby prompting international powers to deal directly with Tehran regarding Lebanon.

Lebanon therefore has a direct and clear interest in continuing along the negotiating path, not as a temporary political choice, but as an essential gateway to protecting the state and preventing the country from descending into further wars and collapse. Whatever difficulties may obstruct this process, and however slow progress may appear, it remains far less costly for Lebanon than the logic of open confrontation, for which the Lebanese people have paid a heavy price for decades.