The key aspect of the fifth round of direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, under U.S. sponsorship in Washington, remains the position of the Lebanese military delegation.
Many Lebanese will remember only this delegation's refusal to be photographed alongside the Israelis. But, in reality, this stance is just the tip of the iceberg. It conceals a much deeper disagreement.
As an official military source stated, Lebanese soldiers could not, at this stage, agree to be photographed next to Israelis, especially since several Lebanese soldiers had been killed by Israeli shelling. Furthermore, according to the army’s perspective, the joint photo should crown the process, not trigger it. But the Lebanese military delegation’s position runs much deeper than that.
According to sources close to the army, the technical military talks ought to begin with a full cease-fire and a clear decision for a total Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territory. This is spelled out by the official Lebanese position and is included in the agreement concluded in Switzerland between the United States and Iran. If this starting point is taken into account, the technical negotiations are intended to examine procedures and practical details to ensure implementation.
It’s in this specific context that the proposal for “pilot zones” was made, presented as a process of gradual withdrawal of Israeli soldiers following what’s known as the “step for step” approach. Yet, the shelling continues, even if it has notably decreased.
While negotiations were already underway, the Israeli prime minister declared that as long as he is in office, there will be no total Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, and his defense minister backed him up.
For the Lebanese military delegation, all these signs show an Israeli intention to circumvent the basic principles in order to gain ground advantages. The Israelis want to retain the right to attack if they feel threatened. That means Lebanese sovereignty will never be fully guaranteed and the Israelis can always justify their attacks, especially as they believe they are not accountable on this matter and that their right to act is absolute.
Moreover, Israelis continually blame the Lebanese by stating that the constant fear of threat from Lebanon comes from the Lebanese Army not having truly disarmed Hezbollah or destroyed its infrastructure.
For its part, the Lebanese Army completely rejects this view, stating that, on the one hand, it is doing what it can with the resources available, and, on the other, that its mission begins after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to the timetable that will ultimately be adopted in the negotiations.
In this context, the military delegation went to Washington with maps and several “pilot zone” proposals to begin implementing the planned operation on the ground: Israeli withdrawal, army deployment, and verification of the fighters' departure, as well as the dismantling of Hezbollah’s weapons and infrastructure in the area.
However, the proposals presented by the Lebanese military delegation concern areas south of the Litani, while the Israelis preferred to start with areas where clashes with Hezbollah have recently taken place, north of the Litani, notably in the regions of Nabatieh and Ali Taher.
This approach makes the military delegation feel that the Israelis want not only to circumvent the agreement but also to push the Lebanese Army into a confrontation with Hezbollah. This is precisely what the troops want to avoid at all costs. Army commander Rodolph Haykal has repeatedly stated that he absolutely does not want the soldiers to be confronted by Hezbollah's fighters.
The proposal to allow the Americans to form special units under their direct control, tasked with destroying Hezbollah’s installations and disarming its fighters, does not appeal to the troops either. They are concerned that this would be a new way of creating divisions within the army. For the older soldiers, this recalls the situation during the civil war years, when the army was divided into confessional brigades, which ultimately aligned with their popular bases and almost turned into militias.
For some, the greatest achievement after the end of the war, following the adoption of the Taif Accord, was the reunification of the army and the mixing of brigades so that they no longer had a confessional character. It is true that the army must carry out the decisions of the political authorities, but it does not want to fall into internal conflict. According to military sources, the political authorities should first get the approval of all components before making crucial decisions affecting the country’s future.
