A diplomatic source familiar with the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations has warned that Israel's focus on military gains in southern Lebanon risks stalling the peace process. The source told Arab News that continued Israeli advances, particularly around Nabatieh, could undermine efforts to secure a ceasefire and cast doubt on whether a new round of talks will take place in Washington.
Dire situation in Lebanon
“Our situation in Lebanon is dangerous if we cannot put an end to the ongoing Israeli incursion,” the source said during a closed media briefing. “The Israelis have a strong appetite for Nabatieh and under these circumstances it is impossible to compel them to commit even to sparing Beirut’s southern suburbs from strikes.”
The remarks come as Lebanon and Israel struggle to preserve a negotiation process launched under US auspices. The source warned that a fifth round of talks might never materialize, describing the situation in southern Lebanon as a “complete catastrophe.” Over 1.5 million people have been displaced since the start of the current fighting, up from about 110,000 during the previous conflict.
Israeli reluctance to negotiate
The source described the Israeli side as unenthusiastic about the negotiations, both in substance and format, despite continued American efforts. “The Israeli side does not want to negotiate and is not interested in it,” he said. Signs of reluctance were visible during the fourth round of talks at the US State Department, where the Israeli delegation “entered the building as if under duress.” He attributed this partly to Israel’s internal political turmoil and upcoming elections.
Despite US pressure, Israel rejected every proposal advanced by the Lebanese delegation. The source noted that Washington’s leverage remains constrained by the strategic alliance between the two countries.
Joint declaration and its challenges
The fourth round produced a joint Lebanon-Israel statement, which generated controversy in Lebanon and was rejected by Hezbollah and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. However, the source argued the declaration was a diplomatic achievement for Lebanon, as it included provisions for a comprehensive ceasefire, pilot zones for the Lebanese army to return to sensitive areas, the return of displaced civilians, and reconstruction under Lebanese state authority.
“The importance of the declaration is that it obligates Israel to ceasefire. Unfortunately, it faltered with the escalation of hostilities,” he said.
Contentious issues: the mountain ridge
One of the most contentious moments came when Israel proposed maintaining military control over a mountain ridge stretching from Tell Al-Bayada on the Mediterranean coast into Jabal Amel, extending up to 10 km inside Lebanese territory. Israel views the ridge as strategically important, believing Hezbollah’s anti-tank weapons cannot effectively target Israeli communities beyond it. The proposal triggered a sharp confrontation, with the Lebanese delegation nearly walking out.
Lebanon responded by proposing pilot zones in Bint Jbeil and later around Beaufort Castle. The source expressed fears that Israeli control of Beaufort Castle could pave the way for a broader advance toward Nabatieh, which now appears justified given the recent escalation.
Parallel tracks and US involvement
The source criticized attempts by Hezbollah and the Amal Movement to establish a parallel negotiating track separate from the Lebanese state. He dismissed US President Donald Trump’s claim of having spoken with Hezbollah, stating that Trump had contacted Lebanese Ambassador Nada Mouawad seeking a Hezbollah contact, but she replied that she did not know.
Tensions also surfaced when Lebanese delegates accused Israel’s hardline position of strengthening Iran’s influence. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently contacted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and language condemning Iranian attacks was included in the Washington statement after Lebanese objections.
Lebanon’s independent stance
Lebanon’s strongest asset remains its insistence on negotiating independently, avoiding parallel power structures that shaped previous eras of Syrian influence. “Lebanon’s strength lies in its independent position,” the source said. Drawing a comparison with the 1991 Madrid Conference, he noted that although Lebanon was represented by senior diplomats, it had little ability to influence the outcome. “The lesson is that representation alone is not enough unless Lebanon is able to defend its own interests.”
