A state of skepticism prevails within political and security circles in Israel regarding the possibility of achieving a serious breakthrough in the ongoing negotiations between the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors in Washington. Analytical readings indicate that Israel still expects the failure of diplomatic tracks, not only on the Lebanese front, but even in the Iranian nuclear file, where the military establishment is preparing for the possibility of renewed war.
Leaks from within the Israeli security establishment indicate that the gap between the two sides is still very deep, making the option of military escalation closer than political settlement. Tel Aviv fears that any agreement between Washington and Tehran might give the latter an opportunity to restore its military and missile capabilities, which directly reflects on the strength of its allies in the region, especially Hezbollah.
For his part, military analyst Amos Harel warned that the Israeli leadership's continued search for a 'victory image' could lead to counterproductive results that threaten the army's efficiency. Harel pointed out that the chances of success for the Washington negotiations are slim, given that the declared Israeli goal is to dismantle Hezbollah's military structure, which the party rejects outright.
Observers believe that Israel found itself compelled to sit at the negotiating table in response to direct pressure from US President Donald Trump's administration. This shift comes after a long period of Israeli rejection of Lebanese demands, as Benjamin Netanyahu's government currently adopts a security doctrine based on exercising maximum military force to impose its conditions.
In a related context, media sources explained that Netanyahu is trying to balance American pressure with his promises to the Israeli public to crush Hezbollah's capabilities. Washington has provided Netanyahu with a diplomatic exit by launching 'peace negotiations' essentially aimed at reaching a temporary ceasefire or reducing the intensity of combat operations without appearing defeated.
Israeli experts recall previous failed experiences in negotiating with Lebanon, such as the 1983 attempts that did not yield tangible results on the ground. Professor Eyal Zisser confirms that the Lebanese side is currently focused on securing a ceasefire only, without possessing the actual ability to implement Israel's demands regarding the disarmament of armed factions.
Zisser adds that the official Israeli narrative that speaks of permanently weakening Hezbollah lacks accuracy, stressing that the party still retains a huge arsenal of missiles and drones. According to his estimates, Hezbollah is capable of managing a long-term war of attrition, citing the failure to decisively end the battle in the Gaza Strip despite a long time since its outbreak.
On the ground, reports indicate that Hezbollah still controls the initiative at many border points despite the limited Israeli incursion. Observers believe that the advance of Israeli forces has not exceeded a few kilometers in some axes after weeks of fighting, which reinforces the party's narrative about its ability to withstand and confront.
On the other hand, the fundamental disagreement over the timing of the ceasefire emerges, as Lebanon stipulates a cessation of military operations as a first step preceding any diplomatic coordination. In contrast, the Israeli government insists on the principle of 'negotiating under fire,' wishing to continue military pressure to achieve greater political gains at the negotiating table.
Analyst Tzvi Bar'el considered these negotiations to represent a 'sovereignty test' for the Lebanese state and the future of its institutions in light of the ongoing conflict. He pointed out that the gaps in positions are not only technical but relate to each party's vision for the future stability on the shared borders, which makes reaching a comprehensive agreement elusive at present.
Regarding the Iranian role, Tehran clearly linked the Islamabad negotiations track with the field developments in Lebanon, complicating the regional scene. This linkage places the Israeli negotiator before the challenge of dealing with multiple interconnected fronts, where any understandings in Washington affect the balance of power in the entire region.
In conclusion, all eyes remain on the outcome of the Washington meetings, despite the prevalence of pessimism in the statements of officials and analysts in Tel Aviv. With the continued mutual shelling, it seems that the field will remain the primary arbiter in determining the ceiling of political demands for both Israel and Lebanon in the coming period.
Israel is going to these negotiations reluctantly and at Trump's request, after having previously rejected the Lebanese government's requests for negotiations.
شارك برأيك
Israeli Pessimism Regarding Washington's Negotiations with Lebanon and Expectations of Renewed Confrontation