Remarks by Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun, in his address to journalists in Beirut on October 13—where he argued that, in light of the new regional atmosphere, it’s no longer possible to avoid negotiations with Israel and that it is in Lebanon’s interest to resume them—have sparked great interest and a lively public debate, both for and against, within Lebanon.
Following wide publicity around Aoun’s comments—made on the day of President Trump’s visit to the Knesset—and claims that they signaled a shift in Lebanese policy, the presidential office issued a clarification stating that his words did not reflect a change in Lebanon’s official stance. It emphasized that Lebanon had previously engaged in negotiations with Israel under American mediation, which led to the delineation of the maritime border. It was further noted that Lebanon cannot remain outside the circle of regional diplomatic solutions, as it must advance its interest in achieving stability, preserving sovereignty, and ending Israeli strikes in Lebanon. The Lebanese foreign minister also intervened to explain that Lebanon rejects the possibility of direct negotiations with Israel, and that the president was referring to indirect talks aimed at resolving disputes over the land border.
Conversely, Hezbollah and its supporters categorically reject any possibility of normalizing relations with Israel. For example, Hezbollah Parliament Member Ali Mekdad expressly opposed any step that would be considered normalization with Israel. Spokespeople for the organization argue that normalization talk expresses capitulation to US pressure and some label its supporters “servants of the American embassy.” In their view, it’s important to preserve Hezbollah’s arms for the continued struggle against Israel.
Hezbollah’s current weakness, along with its efforts by any means to prevent its disarmament, continues to pose a central obstacle to the new leadership’s attempts to advance relations with Israel. In addition, there remains a gap between the position of the Lebanese government—which conditions the opening of indirect talks with Israel on Israeli concessions, primarily the full withdrawal of IDF forces and cessation of strikes in Lebanon—and Israel’s position, which, with US support, demands genuine and sustained progress by the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah. Some also note that Lebanese law prohibits any contact with Israelis.
These developments reveal, on the one hand, the new spirit of the Lebanese leadership, which no longer hesitates to publicly express its interest in changing relations with Israel and seeks to keep the Lebanese issue on the regional agenda, and on the other hand, the constraints it faces. The issue is expected to remain on the agenda and may gain a sense of urgency given the ongoing IDF strikes aimed to prevent Hezbollah’s reconstruction efforts. The imminent arrival of the new US ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa (a businessman of Lebanese origin), may also contribute to this dynamic.
From Israel’s perspective, it’s important to agree to any initiative or opportunity for dialogue with Lebanon, even if indirect, while refraining from prematurely relinquishing its freedom of action to continue strikes against Hezbollah.
Remarks by Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun, in his address to journalists in Beirut on October 13—where he argued that, in light of the new regional atmosphere, it’s no longer possible to avoid negotiations with Israel and that it is in Lebanon’s interest to resume them—have sparked great interest and a lively public debate, both for and against, within Lebanon.
Following wide publicity around Aoun’s comments—made on the day of President Trump’s visit to the Knesset—and claims that they signaled a shift in Lebanese policy, the presidential office issued a clarification stating that his words did not reflect a change in Lebanon’s official stance. It emphasized that Lebanon had previously engaged in negotiations with Israel under American mediation, which led to the delineation of the maritime border. It was further noted that Lebanon cannot remain outside the circle of regional diplomatic solutions, as it must advance its interest in achieving stability, preserving sovereignty, and ending Israeli strikes in Lebanon. The Lebanese foreign minister also intervened to explain that Lebanon rejects the possibility of direct negotiations with Israel, and that the president was referring to indirect talks aimed at resolving disputes over the land border.
Conversely, Hezbollah and its supporters categorically reject any possibility of normalizing relations with Israel. For example, Hezbollah Parliament Member Ali Mekdad expressly opposed any step that would be considered normalization with Israel. Spokespeople for the organization argue that normalization talk expresses capitulation to US pressure and some label its supporters “servants of the American embassy.” In their view, it’s important to preserve Hezbollah’s arms for the continued struggle against Israel.
Hezbollah’s current weakness, along with its efforts by any means to prevent its disarmament, continues to pose a central obstacle to the new leadership’s attempts to advance relations with Israel. In addition, there remains a gap between the position of the Lebanese government—which conditions the opening of indirect talks with Israel on Israeli concessions, primarily the full withdrawal of IDF forces and cessation of strikes in Lebanon—and Israel’s position, which, with US support, demands genuine and sustained progress by the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah. Some also note that Lebanese law prohibits any contact with Israelis.
These developments reveal, on the one hand, the new spirit of the Lebanese leadership, which no longer hesitates to publicly express its interest in changing relations with Israel and seeks to keep the Lebanese issue on the regional agenda, and on the other hand, the constraints it faces. The issue is expected to remain on the agenda and may gain a sense of urgency given the ongoing IDF strikes aimed to prevent Hezbollah’s reconstruction efforts. The imminent arrival of the new US ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa (a businessman of Lebanese origin), may also contribute to this dynamic.
From Israel’s perspective, it’s important to agree to any initiative or opportunity for dialogue with Lebanon, even if indirect, while refraining from prematurely relinquishing its freedom of action to continue strikes against Hezbollah.