The Lebanese government’s agreement, under American pressure, to add a diplomat to the talks with Israel as part of the enforcement committee for implementing the ceasefire constitutes a small but significant step in the Lebanese internal struggle over Hezbollah’s status and influence. The decision was made contrary to the organization’s position. Hezbollah vehemently opposes any direct contact between Lebanese and Israeli representatives and demands that civilian actors not be added to talks with Israel, which until now have been defined as indirect military talks, as long as Israel does not cease its military activity in Lebanon and withdraw from all its territory. Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Naim Qassem, emphasized this stance in his speech on December 5, arguing that the decision contradicts all the organization’s positions and represents a major Lebanese concession to Israel without any return. His speech also included harsh criticism of the Lebanese government, comparing the decision to drilling a hole in a ship at sea carrying all the country’s citizens. Some of the organization’s supporters even labeled the move as “treason.”
Since the Lebanese government’s fateful decision on August 5 to disarm Hezbollah, it has been apparent that the Lebanese leadership has been dragging its feet in implementing it, mainly due to fear of confrontation with Hezbollah that could lead to internal chaos. The leadership has aligned itself with the organization’s demands regarding progress in political negotiations with Israel. However, it seems that concern over an expanded confrontation with Israel—which claims that Hezbollah’s rehabilitation is advancing faster than the IDF’s efforts to preserve its weakness—has pushed the government to take the risk and agree to the participation of civilian representatives in the talks within the enforcement committee. President Aoun addressed the matter and said on December 5 that the move was not meant to appease the international community but rather to serve Lebanon’s interests and prevent another round of violence, and that it is irreversible.
Adopting the decision, contrary to Hezbollah’s position, reflects further erosion of the organization’s status within Lebanon’s internal political system and intensifies the dilemma facing it. Hezbollah still retains a deterrent capability vis-à-vis the Lebanese leadership, of turning against the government as well as initiating military escalation with Israel on its own. Yet exercising either option could weaken Hezbollah even further. Conversely, refraining from such steps may encourage the Lebanese leadership to press ahead with negotiations with Israel, even as the IDF continues its efforts to weaken the organization.
The Lebanese government’s agreement, under American pressure, to add a diplomat to the talks with Israel as part of the enforcement committee for implementing the ceasefire constitutes a small but significant step in the Lebanese internal struggle over Hezbollah’s status and influence. The decision was made contrary to the organization’s position. Hezbollah vehemently opposes any direct contact between Lebanese and Israeli representatives and demands that civilian actors not be added to talks with Israel, which until now have been defined as indirect military talks, as long as Israel does not cease its military activity in Lebanon and withdraw from all its territory. Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Naim Qassem, emphasized this stance in his speech on December 5, arguing that the decision contradicts all the organization’s positions and represents a major Lebanese concession to Israel without any return. His speech also included harsh criticism of the Lebanese government, comparing the decision to drilling a hole in a ship at sea carrying all the country’s citizens. Some of the organization’s supporters even labeled the move as “treason.”
Since the Lebanese government’s fateful decision on August 5 to disarm Hezbollah, it has been apparent that the Lebanese leadership has been dragging its feet in implementing it, mainly due to fear of confrontation with Hezbollah that could lead to internal chaos. The leadership has aligned itself with the organization’s demands regarding progress in political negotiations with Israel. However, it seems that concern over an expanded confrontation with Israel—which claims that Hezbollah’s rehabilitation is advancing faster than the IDF’s efforts to preserve its weakness—has pushed the government to take the risk and agree to the participation of civilian representatives in the talks within the enforcement committee. President Aoun addressed the matter and said on December 5 that the move was not meant to appease the international community but rather to serve Lebanon’s interests and prevent another round of violence, and that it is irreversible.
Adopting the decision, contrary to Hezbollah’s position, reflects further erosion of the organization’s status within Lebanon’s internal political system and intensifies the dilemma facing it. Hezbollah still retains a deterrent capability vis-à-vis the Lebanese leadership, of turning against the government as well as initiating military escalation with Israel on its own. Yet exercising either option could weaken Hezbollah even further. Conversely, refraining from such steps may encourage the Lebanese leadership to press ahead with negotiations with Israel, even as the IDF continues its efforts to weaken the organization.