South Lebanon negotiations take shape amid escalation and one-upmanship

Despite the escalating threats and shelling on the southern front, negotiations persist. The southern area witnessed renewed tension on Monday with Israel airstrikes on Ghazieh, south of Saida, for the first time since Oct. 8.

While both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah acknowledged last week that the situation was tilting toward escalation, recent developments suggest ongoing efforts toward a settlement.

There are growing indications that both sides remain committed to reaching a resolution that ensures long-term stability along the border — a prospect that is gaining clarity by the day.

Undoubtedly, one of the initial indicators was the meeting between caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati and US envoy for Lebanon Amos Hochstein in Munich on Saturday. The two engaged in discussions regarding the continuation of negotiations aimed at securing a ceasefire or maintaining control over the situation on the ground.

A Western diplomatic source informed L’Orient-Le Jour that Hochstein is now convinced that a resolution on the Lebanese-Israeli border is unlikely before the cessation of hostilities in the Gaza Strip.

This aligns with Hezbollah’s primary condition for considering a ceasefire in the south, as reiterated by Nasrallah on multiple occasions.

Hochstein’s remarks following his meeting with Mikati underscored efforts to mitigate the situation and facilitate the return of residents to border villages on both sides.

“We are striving to minimize the conflict in southern Lebanon,” he said. This underscores his belief that operations cannot halt while the hostilities in Gaza persist.

The current objective is to prevent the escalation of hostilities and confine them within a defined geographical area with established rules of engagement.

Furthermore, Hochstein emphasized the need for substantial support to bolster the Lebanese Army and revitalize the economy of southern Lebanon. He highlighted the necessity for international assistance, calling upon European nations and Gulf States to contribute to the forthcoming stages.

These remarks hold significant implications, particularly regarding the focus on economic revitalization and support for the military, alongside the explicit mention of European and Gulf State involvement.

Paris conference in support of the army

In recent days, it has become increasingly apparent that European nations, notably France, the UK, Germany and Italy, are actively engaged in formulating proposals aimed at enhancing stability in southern Lebanon.

France, for instance, presented Lebanese stakeholders with a roadmap grounded in the April 1996 agreement. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom suggested the installation of surveillance towers akin to those erected along the border with Syria.

“All of these proposals are expected to be incorporated into the American framework currently under development by Amos Hochstein,” said the same Western diplomatic on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation.

Furthermore, France's intention to convene an international conference on support for the Lebanese Army in the coming days, potentially followed by another conference in Rome in March, aligns with this overarching context.

According to L’Orient-Le Jour's sources, discussions regarding the upcoming conference will involve Paris and several other capitals, including Doha. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim al-Thani is expected to visit the French capital soon.

This visit holds significant importance for Lebanon for two primary reasons.

Firstly, Qatar and France are pivotal actors in Lebanon’s hydrocarbon dossier. Secondly, both countries are members of the quintet — alongside the US, Saudi Arabia and Egypt — involved in the Lebanese presidential dossier.

Hochstein emphasized the importance of cooperation with the Gulf States, given the US and Qatar’s significant support for the Lebanese Army.

This collaboration could potentially expand to involve other Gulf nations, with economic considerations at its core, as these states have historically been Beirut’s primary financial backers.

Hochstein reiterated American efforts to bolster the Lebanese economy, citing recent milestones such as the demarcation of the maritime border with Israel in October 2022 and the start of drilling operations in the Lebanese exclusive economic zone (EEZ), with involvement from Doha, Paris and Rome.

However, it’s essential to note that the failure of the consortium comprising TotalEnergies, ENI and QatarEnergy to sign contracts for the exploration and exploitation of blocks 8 and 10 of the Lebanese EEZ on time, as well as their failure to request an extension, cannot be divorced from the prevailing political and security situation in the country.

The Lebanese government currently confronts two alternatives: Extending the deadline or initiating a new call for tenders. This decision is intertwined with developments in southern Lebanon and the anticipation of a ceasefire.

This underscores the interconnected nature of political, military and economic issues, all of which necessitate a comprehensive and global solution.

Hezbollah and the ‘basket’

In the current landscape, the international community is striving to bolster stability by addressing key aspects such as the election of a president and the formation of a government, aiming for reconstitution and reorganization of power.

However, behind-the-scenes murmurs hint at potential discord within the quintet, which could hinder collective action and constrain the emergence of any agreements.

As a potential remedy, some speculate that a breakthrough might stem from negotiations involving the US, Qatar and Iran.

Notably, there are voices within the US suggesting that Saudi Arabia may not be inclined to deepen its involvement in Lebanon, nor to provide investment or aid, prompting consideration for alternative partners.

This situation echoes a recurring challenge that surfaced following the delimitation of the maritime border between Lebanon and Israel, during a period when relations between Riyadh and Washington were strained.

During a meeting between Hochstein and former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid at the time. the latter said that after this agreement, “you will be forgiven for destroying relations with Saudi Arabia.”

This statement carries several implications, which remain relevant given the evolving and increasingly strained relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia.

A significant recent development indicating the progress of negotiations is Nasrallah’s latest speech on Friday, wherein he emphasized that the issue of Gaza and southern Lebanon remains distinct from other matters. According to the Hezbollah leader, it is not linked to the presidential election, constitutional revisions, or pursuing political gains for the party.

However, opponents of Hezbollah argue that despite these assertions, the party is still pushing for negotiations on a comprehensive package that would secure political and economic advantages, such as investments and the lifting of what Hezbollah terms the “economic siege” on Lebanon.

This scenario recalls the context of the maritime agreement, where discussions revolved around a comprehensive “deal” encompassing the delivery of Egyptian gas and Jordanian electricity to Lebanon, alongside various economic incentives, in exchange for concessions from Hezbollah.

Yet, none of these anticipated outcomes materialized. The reality persists that the maritime arrangement between Lebanon and Israel solidified the Amal-Hezbollah alliance as the primary negotiators and decision-makers.

In the aftermath of the Oct.7 war, it is this camp that foreign powers will engage with to broker an agreement, much to the chagrin of other Lebanese stakeholders on the geopolitical chessboard.

This article was originally published in L'Orient-Le Jour. Translated by Sahar Ghoussoub.