Israel and Lebanon began negotiating yesterday in Washington (United States) to reach a diplomatic solution to the new war that confronts them, a bloody ramification of the conflict in Iran. It is not a negotiation at the highest level, but at the level of ambassadors, and it is true that decades of mutual rejection are not expected to end in a few hours, but the step is important: their delegations have not sat at the same table since 1993.
Then, in the heat of the Oslo Accords, the Middle East looked with hope to the future, with what was believed to be, at last, the solution to the Palestinian conflict and, little by little, to the other related conflicts. Everything that has been betrayed in these years.
In the conversations with the US as mediator, it was already clear that there is a double positioning: the Lebanese authorities sought to achieve a ceasefire, because the attacks by their southern neighbor already left more than 2,000 dead and more than a million displaced, while Israel’s objective was the disarmament of the armed group Hezbollah.
The talks, which the White House has described as “open, direct and high-level”, were assessed at the end of the first day of testing as “positive”, despite the fact that the road is full of obstacles, from the maximalist requests of Benjamin Netanyahu’s side to the demands of Hezbollah, which has urged the Lebanese Government to withdraw directly, describing its efforts as “useless”.
Qassem Naim, leader of the pro-Iran Shiite militia party, declared already on Monday that the talks are a ploy to pressure them to lay down their arms. The group attacked Israel in response to the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the hands of the United States and Israel on February 28, in the first hours of Operation Epic Fury. Tel Aviv then responded to its initial barrage with an air and ground offensive, which is also creating an occupied buffer zone on legitimate Lebanese soil, south of the Litani River.
Israel’s government has so far refused to accept a ceasefire in Lebanon as stipulated in the US-Iran truce agreement, according to lead mediator Pakistan. And if Lebanon does not enter the document, Tehran maintains that there will be no agreement with the Americans, neither now nor ever.
In El HuffPost We review the high-level meeting, what is on the agenda and the forecasts:
The negotiation
The negotiations took place on Tuesday at the headquarters of the United States Department of State, in Washington, DC. It is estimated that the parties spoke for about six hours, according to local media.
Among the participants were:
- Nada Hamadeh: Lebanese ambassador to the United States
- Yechiel Leiter: Israeli ambassador to the United States
- Marco Rubio: US Secretary of State, whose participation, according to the State Department, underlines the “historical nature” of the meeting.
- Michel Issa: US ambassador to Lebanon, as facilitator.
- Michael Needham: State Department advisor, also facilitator
The US State Department presented the meeting as a necessary response to the “reckless actions of Hezbollah.” A US official stressed that “Israel is at war with Hezbollah, not with Lebanon, so there is no reason for the two neighboring countries not to talk,” Al Jazeera indicates.
The moment
The diplomatic initiative comes after an intense escalation of violence, in which Israel is accused of attacking civilian areas throughout Lebanon. Hezbollah has also been launching rockets into Israel and its fighters have clashed with Israeli ground troops in the south of the country.
The Israeli military offensive in Lebanon has killed at least 2,089 people, including 165 children and 87 health workers, and displaced more than 1.2 million. These are data from the Lebanese Ministry of Health closed as of yesterday.
Lebanon says the talks are aimed at stopping Israel’s attacks on the country. Israel, as we said, has refused to discuss a ceasefire and has instead demanded that Hezbollah lay down its arms.
The ceasefire agreed last week between the United States and Iran included Lebanon, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to respect it. He later announced direct talks with the Lebanese government. US President Donald Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, supported Netanyahu’s position, although several European leaders have urged that Lebanon be included in the global ceasefire agreement in the conflict with Iran. France is the most quarrelsome in this regard.
Local analysts believe Lebanon was used as a bargaining chip during Saturday’s ceasefire negotiations in Islamabad. Washington mediated these direct talks to snatch that trump card from Iran, precisely. Israel was quick to join the talks so as not to snub Donald Trump, who is seen as not achieving his objectives in this war but clearly does not want to become entangled in a longer and more exhausting conflict. He prefers, for now, to live in a precarious armistice that keeps the markets more serene. He doesn’t talk about the victims.
It must be remembered that, since the end of 2024, Israel and Lebanon had a ceasefire in force, after the last major clash between them.
Smoke rises in affected areas of the city of Shebaa, in Lebanon’s Nabatieh province, following an Israeli airstrike on April 14, 2026.
The agenda and preferences
The main points of discussion were achieving a ceasefire, disarming Hezbollah and exploring a broader peace agreement. However, both sides approached the agenda from very different points of view.
According to Israeli media reports such as The Jerusalem PostIsrael attended the talks with instructions “not to accept a ceasefire.” Instead, Netanyahu explicitly stated that Israel wants “the dismantling of Hezbollah’s weapons and a true peace agreement that lasts for generations.”
To achieve this, according to a report by Israel’s Channel 14, Israel is expected to propose a controversial plan that would divide southern Lebanon into three security zones:
- Zone 1 (0-8 kilometers from the border): An intensive, long-term Israeli military presence that would be maintained until Hezbollah was completely dismantled.
- Zone 2 (to the Litani River): Israeli forces would continue operations, but would gradually relinquish control to the Lebanese Army. We are talking about an area of between 30 and 40 kilometers.
- Zone 3 (north of the Litani River): The Lebanese army would assume sole responsibility for disarmament of Hezbollah.
Additionally, Israeli officials have floated the idea of formally reestablishing a “buffer zone” in southern Lebanon, a policy that was abandoned decades ago after facing resistance from Lebanese armed groups.
The Lebanese position is very different. According to its Culture Minister, Ghassan Salame, Beirut sees the Washington talks strictly as a “preliminary meeting” to achieve a pause in military activity.
Salame acknowledged to Al Jazeera that Lebanon lacks significant influence, but stressed that the government is trying to “reaffirm state authority” and separate the Lebanese issue from the Iranian one. Regarding Israel’s demand to disarm Hezbollah, Salame warned that such a process “takes time” and cannot be achieved in a matter of days.
Last year, the Lebanese cabinet announced plans to disarm Hezbollah under pressure from the US. But Hezbollah called the decision a surrender to Israel and its American friend. Hezbollah stated that, as part of the 2024 ceasefire agreement agreed between the armed group and Israel, Israel had to first withdraw from the southern region of the country.
Fighting broke out in October 2023 after the militia party launched rockets into Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians of Gaza. Especially hard was the autumn of ’24, when Tel Aviv began a decisive campaign against Hezbollah. It was when he attacked thousands of its members with explosives placed in their search engines and even killed its historic leader, Hasan Nashrallah. This ceasefire had been violated by both parties on several occasions and the content of that agreement, at the very least, is what they now aspire to return to.
An estimated 3,768 Lebanese were killed and 1.2 million displaced by the Israeli attacks.
That agreement required the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon and the cessation of Hezbollah’s presence in the region. However, Israel never fully withdrew and continued to carry out almost daily attacks on Lebanon, violating the truce. Hezbollah did not retaliate until Khamenei’s assassination on March 1, because it was one of its biggest sponsors.
Why has Hezbollah rejected talks?
Hezbollah has strongly condemned the negotiations, and its secretary general, Naim Qassem, has called them a “gratuitous concession” to Israel and the US. The group’s objections are based on the following factors:
- Negotiating under fire: Hezbollah considers that negotiating while Lebanon is being bombed is equivalent to signing a surrender document. “You cannot hold negotiations to stop the fighting if you are under fire and pressure,” Ali al-Miqdad, a Hezbollah member of the Lebanese parliament, told Al Jazeera.
- Lack of national consensus: Qassem warned that the talks require a “Lebanese consensus” and accused the government of acting without the support of the majority of the population.
- The demand for disarmament: Hezbollah maintains that its weapons are an “internal Lebanese matter” that can only be discussed by Lebanese factions after Israel’s complete withdrawal. As long as there is occupation, there is a legitimate right to resistance, and no one can impose anything on us, is the idea.
- Treason accusations: Hezbollah officials have accused the Lebanese government of “betraying” the resistance by declaring its military activities illegal at the start of the war on March 2. Last week, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam called on the military to regain control of Beirut in a bid to secure security control from Hezbollah.
The group has stated unequivocally that it will not abide by any agreement reached in Washington. It is the greatest uncertainty at this moment, because without them there is nothing, in practice.
Is there hope?
Prospects for an immediate ceasefire appear slim. Lebanon is pressing for an end to hostilities, but Israel is pressing for the disarmament of Hezbollah and, furthermore, doubts Beirut’s ability to meet that demand. He has repeated it publicly and privately.
Meanwhile, the reality on the ground threatens to overshadow diplomatic efforts in Washington. The Israeli Army has surrounded the important southern city of Bint Jbeil, a stronghold of great symbolism for Hezbollah. The outcome of that battle will directly determine the limits of negotiations in Washington.
President Trump’s Administration insisted that any cessation of hostilities must be agreed upon directly between the two governments, with the mediation of their people, and not through parallel channels.
Upon leaving the meeting, the Israeli ambassador stated that the talks showed that his country and Lebanon are “united” in the fight against Hezbollah.
