Lebanon-Israel: Between War and Peace

A paradoxical situation in Lebanon: fighting has continued to intensify despite the ceasefire in force since 23 April. And yet! For the first time in their history, Israel and Lebanon are taking part in direct negotiations in Washington D.C., aimed, if not at a ‘peace treaty’, then at least at a ‘stability agreement’. ’ These negotiations stem in part from a profound shift in Lebanese public opinion. According to a recent poll, 48 per cent of Lebanese people want peace, with a very large majority among Christians and Druze, and to a lesser extent among Sunnis (1). It is against this backdrop – full of both promise and danger – that *Politique Internationale* is publishing an exclusive dialogue between two prominent figures from either side of this still-impassable border. Rita Maalouf, a researcher in digital geopolitics based in Paris, was born in Lebanon. She fled her country during the civil war. Nitzan Horowitz, Minister of Health in the Lapid-Bennett government and a member of the new Democrats party (formed from the merger of the Labour Party and Meretz), lives very close to the Lebanese border. As a young journalist, he covered the Israeli Defence Forces during the First Lebanon War in 1982. As a minister in 2021–2022, he took part in the negotiations that led to the historic agreement between Israel and Lebanon on the division of gas resources in the Mediterranean. Rita Maalouf and Nitzan Horowitz have chosen to speak with one another. Their dialogue is fascinating.

M. and M. T.

 

Michel and Matthieu Taubmann — Following the recent Israeli military offensive, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has adopted a tougher stance towards his southern neighbour. However, he has not called into question the negotiations with Israel. With fighting and ceasefires continuing in quick succession, do these negotiations have a future?

Rita Maalouf — Before any geopolitical considerations, we must acknowledge the suffering of the Lebanese civilian population enduring these bombings: they are paying a heavy human price, and this must be stated clearly. One might also question the limits of the military approach: recent history shows that these cycles of violence have never produced a lasting solution for Lebanon, whatever their origin.

The negotiations currently under way in Washington have reached a turning point, the outcome of which remains uncertain. President Aoun finds himself in a delicate but crucial position. He has chosen to maintain the diplomatic approach despite the pressure – a commitment that Washington has publicly welcomed, recognising the difficulty of this stance in such a tense context. In practical terms, this choice means not making diplomatic progress conditional on Hezbollah’s approval. Continuing discussions via Washington and allowing the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south without Hezbollah having a right of veto is a way of asserting that the Lebanese state is conducting its own policy. For that is precisely the crux of the matter: as long as Iran, via Hezbollah, retains decisive influence over Lebanon’s strategic decisions, the country remains exposed to dynamics that are beyond its control and are wearing it down. In this context, a negotiated peace remains the most viable path for the Lebanese and also for the residents of northern Israel, who have been enduring rocket fire from Hezbollah for months: they, too, deserve to be able to live in peace.

 M. T. and M. T. — Nitzan Horowitz, you live in Mitzpe Hila, at the heart of this combat zone. What is your day-to-day reality like?

Nitzan Horowitz — Officially, a ceasefire is in place. But on the ground, it’s a fiction. I live a few kilometres from the border and I can tell you that the shelling is relentless. Almost every day, we experience two or three air-raid alerts, triggered by Hezbollah drones. Between the militia’s fire and the Israeli artillery retaliations, the idea of peace seems tragically disconnected from what we endure every hour.

 M. T. and M. T.  — The Lebanese government recently broke a taboo by attributing primary responsibility for the war to Hezbollah and its patron, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which it accused in a letter to the UN Security Council of ‘illegal acts committed in flagrant defiance of the Lebanese government’s decisions’. It also accused Iran of having ‘dragged the country into a devastating e war’. This historic turning point, driven by the new Lebanese authorities, who have been in office since January 2025, has prompted US diplomats to propose deepening discussions in the coming weeks with a view to reaching a lasting agreement on security and political matters. Have you been pleasantly surprised by the ongoing meetings in Washington D.C.?

N. H. — Yes, this is undoubtedly a positive development. Although these discussions are taking place under intense US pressure, with President Trump’s direct involvement, and without much enthusiasm on the part of the parties involved, it is nonetheless an important step: for the first time in decades, direct contacts are taking place between Israel and Lebanon with the stated aim of achieving peace. Both Israelis and Lebanese are saying this explicitly. The key issue will be the security and military negotiations. Everything will hinge on them: they must lead to the disarmament of Hezbollah and the establishment of reliable security arrangements. For a few weeks, I was deeply heartened to hear talk of agreements and peace, rather than just war and destruction. However, optimism here is always fleeting. It is very difficult to predict the future, even in the very short term. From one day to the next, we swing between a ceasefire, decreed by the Americans, and an intensification of the fighting, sought by both Israel and Hezbollah.

R. M. — My analysis is that these talks, in reality, remain subordinate to the negotiations between Iran and the United States, even though, in principle, the Iranian and Lebanese issues are separate. This separation is very difficult to maintain because Hezbollah, as we know, is Tehran’s armed wing. Iran has a strategy: to open up multiple fronts around Israel. Today, Syria has fallen, Iraq has been partly neutralised, and so has Gaza. Only Lebanon remains. Tehran will exploit this to the full. This is why the separation of the two issues – Lebanon/Israel on the one hand, Iran/the United States on the other – is so complicated to implement in practice. And it is precisely on the issue of disarming the Shia militia that talks between Israel and Lebanon are stalling.

Maintaining dialogue and achieving progress, even if only partial: this is the only path leading to peace. However, both sides must have the political will to move forward. On the Lebanese side, the signs are encouraging. On the Israeli side, as long as the messianic far right exerts influence over Netanyahu’s decisions, this will remains fragile – and subject to American pressure rather than underpinned by a long-term strategic vision.

M. T. and M. T. — Is there a risk that the recent Israeli offensive might bolster Hezbollah’s standing by casting it in the role of ‘resistance to invasion’ and, by the same token, cause Lebanese public opinion to become more opposed to the idea of peace with Israel?

R. M. — Hezbollah’s strategy of provocation, carried out on behalf of Iran, has reached its limits. In the face of the bombings and destruction that are mainly affecting the Shia civilian population, there is a growing sense of weariness – which further isolates Hezbollah as a warmonger. This sentiment does not necessarily mean support for Israel, but rather support for the idea of peace. To prevent the situation from shifting back in Hezbollah’s favour, there must be genuine negotiations that simultaneously provide for the deployment of an international force tasked with disarming the militia and the withdrawal of the Israeli army from southern Lebanon. These two conditions cannot be separated if the agreement is to be perceived as fair and therefore sustainable.

M. T. and M. T. — Despite this disconnect you mention between the negotiations in Washington D.C. and the fighting on the ground, do the Lebanese remain confident?

R. M. — For the Lebanese, this is not merely a disconnect between war and diplomacy. It is a longer-standing, more painful disconnect: that between a war they are enduring first-hand and a war in which decisions are taken by others: Iran, Hezbollah, Israel, the major powers.

One phrase comes up time and again, regardless of the community or social background: ‘This is not our war.’

Above all, the Lebanese people yearn for a just and lasting peace. They no longer wish to live under the constant threat of war with Israel, nor do they want to see their country turned into a battleground for regional proxy conflicts. The feeling of being caught ‘between a rock and a hard place’ is ever-present: they refuse to allow Lebanon to serve as a forward base for Iranian strategy, just as they refuse to accept that Israel’s security should come at the cost of the destruction of their infrastructure and the mass displacement of their population — there are now more than one and a half million displaced people.

Historically, Lebanon is not a country that is ‘ontologically’ anti-Israeli; above all, it is extremely vulnerable. The Lebanese remember that Israel, in making peace with Egypt and Jordan, returned the conquered lands in exchange for security guarantees. For 70 to 80 per cent of them, this ‘land for security’ equation remains a possible basis for trust.

 M. T. and M. T. — Nitzan Horowitz, how is Lebanon perceived in Israel today? Does public opinion distinguish between the Lebanese state and Hezbollah?

N. H. — Absolutely. In Israel, we do not regard the Lebanese people, nor even the Lebanese Republic, as the enemy. The fight is directed against the He . Indeed, the Israeli media report on numerous voices from Lebanon expressing a desire for peace with Israel and strongly criticising Hezbollah. We believe that the current Lebanese government, and perhaps also the majority of the Lebanese people, do not want war, and that there is therefore a common interest for both sides in the face of the threat posed by Hezbollah. However, the only way to permanently disarm this militia is through close cooperation with a sovereign Lebanese government. For the first time in decades, there is an open willingness to negotiate in Beirut. Israel will not be able to eradicate Hezbollah by military means alone. The army has, in fact, stated this explicitly: to eliminate Hezbollah entirely, it would be necessary to occupy the whole of Lebanon, which is obviously out of the question. That is why a regional and international political solution is needed.

 M. T. and M. T. — Rita Maalouf, the Lebanese state is structurally weak. What guarantees could it realistically offer to bring Hezbollah under control on its territory?

R. M. — Let’s be clear: despite its good will, the Lebanese government does not, on its own, have the means to disarm Hezbollah. The national army is under-equipped, under-funded and riven by complex sectarian dynamics. Hezbollah possesses an arsenal that surpasses that of the state. Disarmament will not happen by decree alone. Resolution 1701 (2), adopted in 2006, was supposed to address precisely this issue. It has never been implemented. That is why I advocate the intervention of an international coalition, under the auspices of the UN, to provide military and political support for this process.

In this regard, France should play a major role, given its historical ties with Lebanon. Yet I deplore a certain complacency towards Hezbollah on both the right and the left of the French political spectrum. This caution sometimes borders on ambiguity, even though this organisation has murdered French soldiers and carried out attacks on our soil. Today, a historic window of opportunity is opening up with President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. If they were to agree to respond to US mediation and meet with Israeli leaders in Washington, such a move would confer upon them a level of international legitimacy that Hezbollah could no longer so easily challenge. But this requires immense political courage.

 M. T. and M. T. — And on the Israeli side, does Benjamin Netanyahu have the political will to conclude such an agreement?

N. H. — That is where the problem lies. As I said: if the conduct of affairs were left solely to the most radical elements within the Israeli government, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich or Internal Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, there would be no agreement at all. These people are committed to a logic of perpetual war. For this messianic far right, the word ‘peace’ has become an insult, synonymous with capitulation. The trauma of 7 October has, moreover, pushed a section of public opinion towards this hardline stance which, at least for the time being, rejects any dialogue. If Netanyahu is negotiating today, it is solely under pressure from Donald Trump, who wants to bring this conflict to an end for reasons of regional stability and domestic politics.

Nevertheless, a peace agreement could gain popular support in Israel, as the country is exhausted by three years of war. Israelis long for a normal life, with open borders and trade relations, such as those we have had with Egypt since 1979 or Jordan since 1994. In Israel, in fact, the election campaign has already begun. From this perspective, Netanyahu might think that a peace agreement would work in his favour. Discontent is growing, even amongst the Prime Minister’s supporters, at the fact that the wars he is waging – in Gaza, Iran and Lebanon – are not coming to an end, and that Israel is suffering casualties every day. It is worth recalling that the Abraham Accords with the Gulf states were very popular in Israel. It is therefore possible that an agreement with Lebanon – perceived, moreover, as taking a firm stance against Hezbollah – might ultimately garner widespread approval.

 M. T. and M. T. — Rita Maalouf, one crucial question remains: is it conceivable that Hezbollah could transform itself into a purely political force, as is sometimes suggested for Hamas?

R. M. — I wouldn’t believe it for a second! Hezbollah is an organisation whose history is marked by disasters, from the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005 to the explosion at the port of Beirut in 2020. Its political and military wings are one and the same entity, dedicated to exporting the Iranian Islamic revolution. In my view, Hezbollah is even more dangerous than Hamas: it has elected representatives in Parliament, infiltrates the civil service, controls entire sectors of the economy – whilst possessing an army more powerful than the national army. It is this dual nature that makes it so difficult to neutralise.

However, Hezbollah has lost something essential: its popular legitimacy. A growing section of the Shia community is distancing itself from the group, accusing it of having started a war without protecting its own base. It is into this rift that diplomacy must step in to restore the sovereignty of the ‘ ’ Lebanon. The fundamental issue is that of integrating, within the national dialogue, those Shia forces that reject Hezbollah’s control. Admittedly, when the Lebanese are surveyed, the responses of the Shia stand in stark contrast to those of other sections of the population. Only 8 per cent wish for peace with Israel, whilst 92 per cent reject it! But it is difficult to gauge the true influence of those who subscribe to Hezbollah’s ideology and those whose responses are driven by fear.

The Lebanese government must find the institutional mechanisms to fully involve this section of the population in the country’s political life. For whilst Hezbollah itself persists in rejecting any prospect of disarmament, it is imperative to engage in dialogue with those within the Shia community who choose the political path.

This approach is not without risks. Hezbollah exerts considerable pressure – not to say a form of terror – on those who dare to oppose its dictates. Shi’ite dissidents pay a high price for their courage. But a simple gesture of openness from the government towards these forces would represent a decisive turning point: it would break Hezbollah’s monopoly on Shi’ite representation and open a breach through which politics could, at last, find a way in.

 M. T. and M. T.  — In conclusion, despite the bombs you can hear even as we speak, is there still room for hope?

N. H. — Yes, I hope with all my heart for peace with Lebanon, as well as with all our neighbours, starting with the Palestinians. The desire for and the need for peace are not abstract concepts. It is a central issue in my life, in that of my family and my community. We live in the shadow of war, and our country is losing its soul. We do not want to become a ‘Sparta’ living by the sword, as Netanyahu wishes. This ceaseless war is wearing us down and weakening Israel. Even from a purely security perspective, the only way to achieve stability is through peace agreements and a joint struggle against the enemies of peace. I would add that we have already tried the path of occupation and destruction in Lebanon in the past – Israel maintained a ‘security zone’ in southern Lebanon for many years, and it was a complete failure. It is time to take serious action and normalise our relations with all our neighbours. It is precisely this reality – characterised by the absence of comprehensive agreements in Gaza and Lebanon – that has led to the current wars. With this in mind, we must also make progress towards an agreement with the Palestinians; ultimately, this is the most crucial issue, the one that lies at the very heart of Israel’s existence. The only way forward is the two-state solution. According to all the polls, Netanyahu will not secure a majority in the forthcoming elections. I hope that the government will change, and that another, more reasonable one will have a genuine vision for the future and a genuine strategy for peace.

R. M. — Yes, even from Paris, even at a distance from those bombs that I can hear through your words, Nitzan, there is hope, based on facts, not on feelings.

For the first time in decades, the Lebanese government is publicly accusing Iran of having dragged its country into a devastating war. For the first time, direct negotiations are taking place between Israel and Lebanon. For the first time, opposition to Hezbollah spans all communities – including, as you pointed out, a growing section of the Shia community, which was its traditional base. These are new developments. They matter.

I am fully aware of the obstacles: Hezbollah has not disarmed, the Iranian issue remains unresolved, and the window of opportunity for diplomacy is narrow. But something has changed profoundly. Lebanon has a historic chance to become a sovereign country once again – and for the first time in a long while, the political conditions to achieve this are in place. Let us act!