Israel, Hezbollah trade blame as ceasefire talks remain uncertain

Report by Lara El Hachem, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

Between Israel and Hezbollah, each side is effectively shifting responsibility for a ceasefire onto the other.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to buy time ahead of legislative elections scheduled for October, while Hezbollah is waiting for the outcome of U.S.-Iran negotiations.

In this context, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun is not remaining passive. As he stated, “We have experienced wars and seen where they led Lebanon. Can anyone still bear their cost?”

On this basis, the path of direct negotiations with Israel is reportedly open along two separate tracks: security and political, with the aim, according to informed sources, of making the process more practical and operational.

On the security track, a meeting is scheduled for May 29 at the U.S. Department of War. Lebanon will be represented by a delegation from the Lebanese army. The agenda has not yet been clarified and remains subject to developments.

Hezbollah deputy Hussein Hajj Hassan has warned against holding the meeting.

Meanwhile, amid widespread leaks about an alleged Israeli proposal for direct security coordination between the Lebanese and Israeli armies, and claims that Washington has pledged to fund and train a Lebanese army brigade for disarmament purposes, three Lebanese sources told LBCI that these reports are inaccurate.

Regarding support for the Lebanese army, the sources said the United States has not changed its policy toward the military institution and that claims about creating specialized brigades are inaccurate. 

They added that the army is a unified institution that cannot be divided and is dealing with a highly complex situation through significant efforts.

As for the formation of a joint Lebanese-Israeli committee, the sources said the issue has not yet been discussed, although it is not new. A joint security committee was previously established to monitor the 1949 armistice. 

Today, however, any such committee would be expected to go beyond monitoring and extend to implementing agreed security arrangements.

On the political track, negotiations are expected to follow the May meeting, with talks scheduled for June 2–3.

In any case, regardless of Israeli intentions, U.S. proposals, or negotiation outcomes, the Lebanese president has reaffirmed Lebanon’s framework for talks: Israeli withdrawal, a ceasefire, deployment of the Lebanese army along the border, the return of displaced people, and economic and financial assistance to Lebanon. He stressed that anything beyond this framework is incorrect.