
Joe Biden, then Vice President of the United States, with Amos Hochstein, at an energy summit in Washington, in 2015. (Credit: US State Department Flickr account)
US President Joe Biden mentioned Lebanon for the first time since the start of the war in Gaza. In a speech on Friday, he spoke of a new proposal for an end to the war pitting Israel against Hamas. He also stated the need to bring about “calm along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon,” in tandem with a cease-fire in Gaza.
This is an opportunity not to be missed, he said, at a time when Hezbollah insists that a halt to hostilities in Lebanon is only possible once the war in Gaza is over.
Lebanon was mentioned in one sentence. However, it was clear that the US administration was increasingly keen on bringing stability to Lebanon.
In the run-up to the US presidential election in November, Biden would like to increase his chances of being elected through a victory in the Middle East. On the other hand, if the war drags on and spreads to the rest of Lebanon, he would find himself in an even more difficult position.
What has not been left unsaid
So, before Biden’s discourse, his envoy to Lebanon Amos Hochstein had presented an updated version of his plan for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah.
“But if we can reach a set of understandings and … take away some of the impetus for conflict and establish for the first time ever a recognized border between the two, I think that will go a long way,” he told Reuters.
The diplomat emphasized the benefits of a political settlement to the war for Lebanon — as Biden did for Israel — and in particular its direct economic impact, at a time when the country is suffering the worst economic and financial crisis in its history.
Hochstein was pragmatic, referring to the possibility of “taking away some of the impetus,” given the complexity of the issues at stake.
“I’m not expecting peace, everlasting peace, between Hezbollah and Israel,” Hochstein said. This realism echoed that of Biden, who described the Middle East crisis as one of “the most complicated problems in the world.”
As proof of this realism, Hochstein was careful not to mention Hezbollah explicitly, let alone its arsenal. Once politics and the economic situation in Lebanon are stabilized, “the ability of outside forces of any consequence to influence Lebanon will diminish dramatically,” he said, without naming Iran.
Moreover, his initial plan, which he submitted to the Lebanese authorities a few weeks ago, made no mention of repositioning, redeployment or withdrawal of Hezbollah’s militias, but rather a reinforcement of security and stability, return to calm and the promotion of the Lebanese Army’s role. That was to avoid alienating Hezbollah.
He also pointed out during the interview that the substantial deployment of troops in southern Lebanon will take some time, as it requires the recruitment, training and equipment of forces.
“Hochstein knows perfectly well that the Lebanese Army is not going to prevent [Hezbollah’s] militants from reaching their homes in south Lebanon. There’s a lot left unsaid in the Americans’ proposals. Hezbollah also maintains this ambiguity,” said the Editor of Diwan Michael Young.
Each phase has its own price
Hochstein had initially defined a three-phase plan for a cease-fire. The first would involve a halt to firing and the return of displaced persons on both sides of the border. The second would be about ceasing military activities in the border area and dispatching additional army forces to stabilize the situation. The third would concern negotiations on the land border and resolving disputed points, which would be finalized at an advanced stage, sources said consistently.
This three-stage proposal has not fundamentally changed. The only thing new in the US diplomat’s latest statement is the firm promise of finding a solution to the age-old electricity problem. He indicated that the Lebanese grid is only operational for a few hours a day which is detrimental to the country’s economy.
“We have a solution for that, we’ve put together a package that could create a solution that would take them to 12 hours of electricity in a ... short amount of time,” Hochstein said.
Less explicitly, he referred to implementing an economic program for Lebanon, “making sure that the international community demonstrates to the Lebanese people that we're invested in them,” he said.
How will Hezbollah react? Hezbollah did not respond to L’Orient-Le Jour’s request for comment. “Hezbollah has every interest in concluding an official agreement with Israel, provided that it is not so vague as to allow [Israel] to continue with the killing of its members,” Young said.
If, however, negotiations were to take place after a cease-fire in Gaza, the expert added, Hezbollah would fear that Israel would be tempted to send its troops back north “to put pressure on Hezbollah in any future negotiations.”
Kassem Kassir, an expert close to Hezbollah, said that if a cease-fire is achieved in Gaza, Hezbollah will probably follow suit. “However, it will give its agreement in principle, on a preliminary basis. As for implementation, it will take time until ideas settle down, especially regarding reconstruction and Israeli withdrawal [from certain disputed border points],” he said.
“The most important thing for the party is the payment of compensation and the development of south Lebanon. Each phase will have its [own] price,” he added.
While in 2006, aid funds from Arab countries poured in for the reconstruction of south Lebanon after the war in the summer, this time they will not be so easily acquired, not least because relations between Beirut and Riyadh have deteriorated.
But even if Hezbollah is prepared to halt the clashes in conjunction with a cease-fire in Gaza, this does not necessarily mean that Israel will not continue fighting in south Lebanon. Hence the US increased pressure, from both Biden and Hochstein.
“The US and France are rushing because they fear that Lebanon’s turn might come after Gaza,” a French diplomatic source told L’Orient-Le Jour. “As a result, they want to prepare the ground in advance for an agreement.”
This article was originally published in L'Orient-Le Jour and translated by Joelle El Khoury.