Israel’s Conditions for a Diplomatic Resolution in Lebanon: High-Stakes Demands Amid Complex Negotiations
-
Salma Hossein
- . October 21, 2024
- . Update: October 21, 2024 11:09 pm
In a significant diplomatic effort aiming at ending the continuous confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel sent a report to the United States suggesting strict conditions for a possible peace agreement with Lebanon. Axios on Sunday said the report highlights Israel’s security concerns, which mostly concern stopping Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group, from armaments and military infrastructure installation close to the Israeli-Lebanese border. But Lebanon and the larger global community are anticipated to fiercely reject these ideas, therefore throwing doubt on the possibility of a peaceful settlement.
Though the stakes are lower, the stage is ready for important talks with White House special envoy Amos Hochstein scheduled to visit Beirut on Monday. Israel’s hunt for terms giving its security first priority left the diplomatic scene still full of difficulties. These agreements will change the more general geopolitics of the region in addition to affecting Israel and Lebanon.
Israel’s Security-First Plan: Killing the Resurgence of Hezbollah
Israel’s demands center on a non-negotiable posture about defending its northern border from approaching Hezbollah threats. Axios claims that one of the main requests in the document is for authorization of “active enforcement” by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in southern Lebanon to guarantee that Hezbollah does not rearm or rebuild its military capability. With a view on eliminating Hezbollah’s military presence and forbade the group from gathering weapons or fortifying sites near the border, this would give Israeli soldiers authorization to enter inside Lebanese territory.
Israel’s continuous worry about Hezbollah’s capacity to compromise its northern cities and infrastructure is captured in this demand. Historically, southern Lebanon has seen quite a plain view for the armed group Israel considers as one of its most threatening enemies. Hezbollah has launched missile strikes into Israel during past conflicts, resulting in major damage and civilian losses. Israeli officials believe that blocking any military comeback of Hezbollah depends entirely on the IDF’s robust implementation.
Israel also insists on complete access from Lebanese territory for its air fleet. Israel might then start unfettered air operations involving surveillance and maybe strikes. In prior conflicts, Israeli air force missions have been crucial and have given Israel the edge in monitoring and stopping Hezbollah’s activities. Thus, a basic component of Israel’s larger plan to keep military superiority and discourage new Hezbollah threats is freedom of operation in Lebanese territory.
Sovereignty of Lebanon and World Opposition
Israel’s security issues define its demands, but they also seriously test the political leadership of Lebanon as well as the world community. Considered as a breach of national sovereignty for Lebanon, allowing a foreign military to operate on its territory and airspace is Giving Israel so great military freedom would be very dynamite in Beirut, where Hezbollah controls military as well as political sectors. It is a very divisive topic since Hezbollah and its supporters would fiercely reject any arrangement that seems to threaten Lebanon’s territorial integrity.
Additionally likely to object to Israel’s demands is the international community. Speaking with Axios, a U.S. official observed that it would be “highly unlikely” for Israel’s needs to be welcomed by Lebanon or the international community European nations, who have always backed UN Interim power in Lebanon (UNIFIL) peacekeeping missions, could be especially worried about Israel’s focus on military capability. Many foreign players believe UNIFIL, which has been stationed in southern Lebanon since 1978 to uphold peace and security, is the suitable body to guarantee stability in the area. One could perceive Israel’s push for IDF participation as compromising UNIFIL’s position and consequently weakening diplomatic initiatives.
Hezbollah operates as a non-state actor wielding state-level authority
Hezbollah’s presence in Lebanon perplexes talks even further. Even though Hezbollah functions as a non-governmental military group, in the Lebanese political scene it is fairly strong. Mostly sponsored by Iran, the organization is a major participant in Lebanese politics with parliamentary seats and influence on important government policies. Participating in hostilities against Israel and other parties inside Syria, Hezbollah’s military branch has been the most often seen actor on the scene.
One unchangeable goal for Israel is demilitarization of Hezbollah. Not a simple chore, though, is neutralizing or disabling the gang. Strong support from the heartlands of Beirut and southern Lebanon enables Hezbollah to be firmly ingrained in Lebanese society. Moreover, its fit with Iran makes it an essential component of the larger geopolitical jigsaw. Any effort to discredit or isolate Hezbollah would probably set off significant reactions from Tehran as well as from within Lebanon, hence aggravating the already high levels of regional conflict.
United States Acting Mediator: Beirut Mission Hochstein
Considering these problems, the US has assumed the mediation role. The forthcoming visit of White House special envoy Amos Hochstein to Beirut highlights Washington’s desire to identify a diplomatic answer to the problem. Deeply involved in past Middle Eastern negotiations, Hochstein will be assigned to balance Israel’s security needs with Lebanon’s worries on sovereignty and stability.
Although historically the United States has been a strong friend of Israel, it also understands the need of preserving stability in Lebanon, an impoverished nation battling political unrest, economic collapse, and the aftermath from previous wars. For Hochstein, finding a solution that satisfies Israel’s security needs and guarantees that Lebanon won’t feel under-pushed into an accord compromising its national interests would prove challenging.
Washington’s attendance in these meetings is really important. The United States is the main mediator, thus she has great influence on Israel and Lebanon. Although the Biden administration wants to lower tensions in the area, the details of how it handles these talks will decide whether or not peace is a reasonable result. Strong back-channel diplomacy will most likely define Hochstein’s visit as the U.S. employs ties to both sides in search of a resolution.
Local Consequences of a Conflict With Broad Reach
The war between Israel and Hezbollah has more overall regional effects than only bilateral ones. Syria and Lebanon caught in the midst; Hezbollah’s close ties to Iran mean that this conflict fits a larger general geopolitical fight between Israel and Iran. Long giving Hezbollah military and financial assistance, Iran sees the group as the major weapon in its attempt to subvert Western and Israeli power in the area.
These talks could change the Middle Eastern power sharing. Should Israel’s needs be satisfied, Hezbollah’s capacity would be seriously undermined, therefore reducing Iran’s influence. Conversely, a breakdown in talks can result in fresh hostility when Israel starts more forceful military operations in Lebanon, therefore triggering a more general regional confrontation.
Apart from the dynamic interaction between Israel and Hezbollah, internal stability of Lebanon is also under danger. The nation already experiences political gridlock, a massive economic catastrophe, and general population unrest. Extended conflict with Israel would just aggravate these problems, therefore destabilizing a nation already on almost close proximity to collapse.
Last but not least, can diplomacy rule?
The road to peace is yet unknown as Israel, Lebanon, and the US get set for the next round of diplomatic talks. While security comes first, Israel’s stance severely compromises Lebanon’s sovereignty and the diplomatic presence outside. Finding a solution that satisfies all sides will need both careful negotiation and significant compromise given Hezbollah’s influence and Iran’s first of mind strategic objectives.
Great stakes mean that failing could have severe consequences. Still, assuming U.S. active intervention and high-level negotiations could help to turn the tide, there is little chance that diplomacy will avert more carnage. Whether the area is heading for yet another cycle of conflict or if peace is realistic will mostly rely on the following weeks.
