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 …