Washington Talks: a First Step Towards Lebanese-Israeli Peace

The moment is, without a doubt, historic in more ways than one: symbolically, first; and in terms of the political impact and strategic dimension of the event, secondly.

The symbolic aspect, first, is of particular importance in the local and regional context that no one ignores: Lebanon's Ambassador to Washington, Nada Hamadé Moawad, meeting face-to-face at the State Department in Washington with Israel's Ambassador, Yechiel Leiter, under the auspices of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with the Lebanese, Israeli, and American flags side by side in the background… The image would have been political fiction just a few months ago.

Ambassador Nada Hamadé Moawad followed by Israel's Ambassador Yechiel Leiter upon their arrival at the meeting room.

But it is the geopolitical dimension that above all takes on a historical and vital character for Lebanon. The Lebanese-Israeli bilateral meeting indeed enshrines a fundamental orientation taken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Salam government, namely the total dissociation between Lebanon's foreign policy and strategic choices, on the one hand, and the political options of the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other.

This orientation defined by President Joseph Aoun and the Salam cabinet has a corollary: the need to put an end to the political (and militia-related…) excesses of the outlaw mini-state of Hezbollah, which for more than two decades has been implementing a strategy of deconstructing the Lebanese state and its institutions.

A two-hour meeting

This geopolitical guideline was thus discussed during the two-hour meeting held at 11 a.m. Washington time (6 p.m. Beirut time) under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State.

The head of American diplomacy welcomed this as a “historic opportunity” for Lebanon and Israel to make peace. “This is about definitively ending 20 or 30 years of Hezbollah's influence in this part of the world,” he declared.

“This goes beyond a single day, it will take time.” “We will no longer allow Iran to exert its influence on Lebanon's political choices,” said Mr. Rubio.

Hezbollah, it is noted in this regard, called the direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon a “capitulation” and marked its disapproval by launching rockets against 13 Israeli border towns at the very moment the meeting began at the State Department.

Little information has filtered regarding the content of the discussions. Lebanon's ambassador called for a ceasefire in South Lebanon; her Israeli counterpart reportedly replied that his government would study the Lebanese request.

A decision was also reportedly made to initiate bilateral negotiations to discuss the issues at the heart of the dispute between the two countries. The venue and date for the start of these talks will be set shortly.

« Excellent exchange »

At the end of the meeting, the Israeli ambassador addressed journalists and hailed an “excellent exchange” during the discussions, noting that Israel and Lebanon were now “on the same side.”

“We discovered today that we are on the same side” between Lebanon and Israel, he affirmed, as he left the State Department.

“This is the most positive thing we could take away from this meeting. We are both united in our desire to free Lebanon from an occupation, from a power dominated by Iran and called Hezbollah,” he said, before adding that “Naim Kassem and Hezbollah are now a thing of the past.”

In the early evening, the State Department was expected to release a joint statement emphasizing that the United States hopes the talks will go “beyond the 2024 agreement to achieve comprehensive peace.”

“The United States supports the Lebanese government's efforts to re-establish the monopoly on legitimate violence and end Iran's influence,” the statement stressed, adding that the United States supports Israel's right to “defend itself against Hezbollah's attacks.”

And the statement underscored that “any agreement aimed at ending hostilities should be discussed between the two governments, under the aegis of the United States, and not through any other channel” (an allusion to Iran's desire to link the ceasefire in Lebanon to the Iranian aspect of talks with Washington).

Aoun: The beginning of the end

Regarding reactions, President Joseph Aoun said he hoped the negotiations would mark “the beginning of the end of the suffering of the Lebanese people.” But “stability will not be restored in the south if Israel continues to occupy territories there,” he added.

For his part, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar stated: “We want to achieve peace and normalization with the Lebanese state. There are no major disputes between Israel and Lebanon. The problem is Hezbollah.”

Operations in the South

Meanwhile in the South, fighting continues to rage on the main front, that of the strategic city of Bint Jbeil, even as Israeli bombardments continue across all southern regions, as do village destructions.

The Israeli army claims to have captured Bint Jbeil.

In this context, the IDF announced on Tuesday the capture of three Hezbollah militants, one of whom was seriously injured and two more lightly. They were taken to Israel.

Previously, the Israeli army had indicated since Monday that it was besieging Bint Jbeil, where dozens of militants were reportedly holed up.

However, the fighting remains fierce as the Israeli side acknowledged that ten of its soldiers have been wounded in the South in recent hours, and one has died.

The Strait of Hormuz

It should be noted that on the Iranian front, several ships crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, but they were not vessels heading for any of the Iranian ports subject to the American blockade.

Of note in this regard is the virulent Chinese reaction concerning this blockade, which China described as “dangerous and irresponsible.”

The other important development this Tuesday, concerning the strait, was the announcement of a conference on Friday, chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with the participation of “non-belligerent” countries willing to contribute to a multilateral and “purely defensive” mission.

An operation aimed at “liberating” the Strait of Hormuz and ensuring free passage. A change of course among European countries, until now hostile to any intervention in the American-Israeli war against the Iranian regime?