Diplomatic efforts are running alongside ongoing violence. In mid-April in Washington, Israel and Lebanon held historic talks for the first time since 1993, even though the two countries have technically been at war since 1948. At the same time, fighting continues in southern Lebanon, a pattern that has recurred for decades. Members of Hezbollah’s military wing — which views Israel as an enemy and has broad support in southern Lebanon — have previously fired rockets into Israel, and Israeli forces have repeatedly bombed the south and established what they call a “security buffer zone,” which critics describe as an occupation. Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by Israel, the US and Germany among others, is now engaged in clashes with Israeli soldiers in the south. Despite the violence, many observers view the Washington talks as progress.
Power imbalances and absences
A major problem with the talks is who is not at the table. Hanna Voss of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s Beirut office notes that Hezbollah — a core party to the conflict — is not participating, limiting the talks’ chances and calling the legitimacy of any outcome into question. Hezbollah, supported by Iran yet deeply embedded in Lebanese society and politics, has refused direct negotiations with Israel. Its deputy leader, Naim Kassem, said the group supports only “indirect negotiation diplomacy,” arguing direct talks would serve Israeli and US political interests.
Analysts also highlight stark asymmetries between the sides. Stefan Lukas of the Berlin consultancy Middle East Minds says Israel retains significant “escalation potential” and is using it. Hussein el Mouallem, program director at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Lebanon, wrote that diplomacy presupposes autonomy for negotiating parties — a condition absent here. He argues the direct Lebanon-Israel talks “do not represent a transition to peace but rather reflect a disturbing dynamic: the entrenchment of power imbalances under the guise of diplomacy.”
Weak Lebanese state
“Who exactly is ‘Lebanon’ anyway?” Lukas asks. The Lebanese government lacks a strong independent power base while Hezbollah remains a dominant, independent actor. Despite battlefield losses, many experts believe Hezbollah’s military wing remains stronger than the Lebanese army, which is officially charged with disarming non-state militias. “Basically, the Lebanese state has no leverage,” Voss says.
Israel and the US press for Hezbollah’s disarmament, but implementing that under current conditions would likely destabilize Lebanon. Ceasefire terms being pursued in negotiations may hinge on conditions Beirut cannot meet without risking internal collapse, Voss warns. External actors further weaken Lebanon: the US backs Israel, while Iran and its proxy Hezbollah pursue their own agendas, constraining the already-fragile government. “The country is caught between several camps and barely able to act,” Voss observes. Lukas adds that Washington is exerting “massive pressure,” while Iran exerts influence strategically and with relatively little effort, turning Lebanon into a stage for wider regional competition.
Hezbollah’s dual role and public opinion
Hezbollah plays two roles in these dynamics: a military foe of Israel and a political-social movement embedded in Lebanese society, with substantial parliamentary representation and strong roots among Shiite communities. This duality gives it influence but also makes it hard to control. Opinions about Hezbollah are mixed inside Lebanon. Arab Barometer research shows 28% of Lebanese prioritize ending Israel’s presence in Lebanon as their top concern, while another 20% say their top priority is disarming non-state actors — effectively, Hezbollah. Rejection of Israel and skepticism about Hezbollah coexist, reflecting Lebanon’s internal divisions.
Many residents of southern Lebanon are skeptical that Washington talks will help. Hanaa Zalghout, whose village in the south was occupied by the Israeli army and whose house was destroyed, says she doubts the government can restore her country and fears any deal will come “at the expense of my village.” Farmer Ahmad Ismail says he sees little hope of returning home and fears any resolution will cost lives. Over a million Lebanese have been displaced by fighting in the south.
Buffer zone and risk of permanent presence
Israel demands Hezbollah withdraw permanently from areas south of the Litani River to prevent attacks on northern Israel, which has motivated its creation of a buffer zone inside Lebanon roughly 5–10 kilometers from the border. Observers warn that Israel may use its military presence to achieve de facto control that the Lebanese army cannot enforce. Voss says if Israel is not compelled to withdraw, it may establish a permanent buffer zone, creating on-the-ground facts that will be nearly impossible to reverse.
Statements by Israeli officials lend some weight to that concern. Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has proposed territorial reorganization favoring Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not ruled out a long-term military presence in the security zone. Voss warns Israel is using security rhetoric to create territorial facts, a pattern seen in other conflicts.
Implications for any agreement
For the Lebanese government this is perilous: even if Washington talks produced a treaty or agreement, Israel and Hezbollah — each with the capacity to use force — could prevent Beirut from implementing terms. External pressure, internal weakness, and the absence of key actors at the negotiating table make a sustainable, enforceable settlement unlikely under current conditions.
With additional reporting from Sara Hteit in Lebanon.
This story was originally published in German.