Diplomatic meetings in Washington this April marked the first direct talks between Lebanon and Israel since 1993, even though the two countries have technically remained at war since 1948. The negotiations are being held while violence continues along the southern Lebanese border: Hezbollah fighters and Israeli forces remain locked in repeated clashes, rockets and airstrikes recur, and civilians continue to be displaced. Observers call the talks historic, but many warn they are unlikely to produce a lasting settlement unless deeper structural problems are addressed.
Missing parties and unequal leverage
A chief shortcoming of the talks is who is absent. Hezbollah — central to any durable solution — declined to participate, arguing it will not sit in direct talks with Israel. Naim Kassem, Hezbollah’s deputy leader, has said the group supports only indirect diplomacy, warning that direct negotiations would serve U.S. and Israeli political aims. Analysts say Hezbollah’s exclusion weakens the legitimacy and enforceability of any outcome.
Beyond that, the negotiations are skewed by stark asymmetries in capability and influence. Stefan Lukas of the Berlin consultancy Middle East Minds stresses that Israel retains considerable escalation potential and is actively using it. Hussein el Mouallem of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Lebanon warns that meaningful diplomacy requires negotiating parties to have autonomy — a condition Lebanon currently lacks. Hanna Voss of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s Beirut office likewise argues that the talks risk entrenching existing power imbalances while pretending to pursue peace.
A fragile Lebanese state
“Who exactly is ‘Lebanon’ anyway?” Lukas asks, highlighting the problem: the Lebanese government has limited independent authority while Hezbollah functions as a powerful, autonomous actor. Despite battlefield setbacks, many experts judge Hezbollah’s military wing stronger than the national army, which is formally tasked with disarming militias. Voss says the Lebanese state today has little leverage.
Pressure from Israel and the United States seeks Hezbollah’s disarmament, but forcing that within Lebanon’s fragile political and social balance could trigger internal collapse. Voss warns that ceasefire conditions being discussed in Washington may demand steps Beirut cannot implement without risking severe domestic instability. External patrons further constrain Lebanon’s options: the U.S. firmly backs Israel, while Iran supports Hezbollah, turning Lebanon into a theater for wider regional rivalry. Lukas describes Washington’s role as heavy pressure, while Iran exerts strategic influence with relatively low effort.
Hezbollah’s dual role and public divisions
Hezbollah is both an armed opponent of Israel and an entrenched political and social movement in Lebanon. It holds parliamentary seats and deep roots in Shiite communities, giving it influence that is hard to neutralize. Public opinion inside Lebanon is divided: Arab Barometer data cited in reporting show 28% of Lebanese list ending Israel’s presence in Lebanon as their top concern, while roughly 20% prioritize disarming non-state actors — effectively targeting Hezbollah. These conflicting priorities reflect a society split over the group’s role and over how to respond to Israel.
Skepticism on the ground
Many residents of southern Lebanon doubt that high-level talks will improve their lives. Hanaa Zalghout, whose village was once occupied and whose home was destroyed, says she doubts the government can rebuild her community and fears any deal will come at the expense of places like her village. Farmer Ahmad Ismail, displaced from his land, sees little hope of returning and worries that any resolution will cost lives. More than a million Lebanese have been displaced by fighting in the south.
Buffer zone and the risk of a permanent presence
A central Israeli demand is that Hezbollah withdraw permanently from areas south of the Litani River to prevent cross-border attacks. Israel has maintained a de facto buffer zone roughly 5–10 kilometers inside Lebanon for decades, and observers warn that continued military presence could become effectively permanent if not checked. Voss cautions that if Israel is not compelled to withdraw, its presence could create on-the-ground realities that the Lebanese state cannot reverse.
Political signals from Israel raise those concerns. Hard-line figures such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have proposed territorial arrangements favorable to Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not excluded a long-term military footprint in the security zone. Analysts say security rhetoric can be used to produce territorial facts, a pattern seen elsewhere.
What this means for any agreement
Even if Washington produces a formal agreement, enforcement is the crucial problem. Both Israel and Hezbollah retain independent capacities to use force, and Beirut’s weakness, internal divisions, and the absence of key actors at the negotiating table make it unlikely that Lebanon could implement—and sustain—many of the deal’s provisions. External pressure from patrons on both sides further complicates prospects for a stable, enforceable settlement.
In short, the Washington talks represent a diplomatic opening, but without Hezbollah’s inclusion, stronger Lebanese institutions, and credible enforcement mechanisms, they risk becoming a diplomatic cover for persistent asymmetries on the ground rather than a pathway to lasting peace.
With reporting from Sara Hteit in Lebanon.
This story was originally published in German.