The negotiations are drifting away from their original focus on Israeli withdrawal and the state’s sovereignty, with disputes over occupied areas, Hezbollah’s weapons and Ali al-Taher threatening to further complicate the talks.
Negotiations between Lebanon and Israel have stumbled, while the Americans are seeking, through pressure, to resume the sessions in Rome in early September. This was confirmed by the U.S. State Department, which is conducting contacts to lower the ceilings, halt Israeli military operations and bombardments, and facilitate discussions on an Israeli withdrawal from occupied test areas in southern Lebanon.
The picture changed after the seventh round of negotiations in Rome, which witnessed tensions between the Lebanese and Israeli delegations, as the mechanism on which the negotiations are proceeding is no longer proving effective, amid the ongoing stalemate, Israel’s obstruction of Lebanese demands, and the American turning of a blind eye in agreement with a number of Israeli conditions. This means diverting the negotiations from their original formula, namely the Israeli withdrawal and the restoration of the state’s sovereignty, with the state as the sole legitimate force and weapons being confined to its hands.
The irony is that the negotiations are no longer addressing the 1949 Armistice Agreement, or at least its amendment in line with the current reality, nor is there even any reference to international resolutions, including Resolution 1701. The existing equations and rules of engagement have changed following the 2024 and 2026 wars on the Lebanese front.
Today, we find ourselves negotiating over the test areas, where as soon as Israel withdraws from one area, it returns to impose new security realities. It refuses to withdraw from occupied areas and has even expanded the yellow occupation line in the western and central sectors, after establishing its occupation of the eastern sector as far as Khiam, while setting aside the Arqoub areas and separating the Bekaa from the south.
It has become clear that Israel is negotiating through belts of fire and pressuring the Lebanese state with American approval, as though it is preparing for an upcoming military operation at Ali al-Taher against Hezbollah. Matters could escalate on the ground in the south through an expansion of Israeli operations, and Hezbollah could carry out offensive operations against the Israeli army if it decides to advance toward the underground facility.
“Ali al-Taher” is not an issue being raised in the negotiation sessions between Lebanon and Israel, but it is an explosive point with repercussions inside Israel and has particular symbolism for Hezbollah. Although it says that the fall of the facility would not mean the end of its military capabilities, Lebanon’s proposal of test areas from which Israel would withdraw — whether Bint Jbeil or Khiam, or even occupied areas along the yellow line, whether Hadatha or Mansouri — was met with an Israeli rejection that diverted the negotiations toward other files. This led to tension during the latest Rome session, but American insistence on continuing the negotiations settled the matter and kept them on their existing course.
While Israeli conditions are rising with every round of negotiations, including not only the confiscation of Hezbollah’s weapons, but also a demand to destroy them when they are found, the Lebanese military delegation rejected this, proposing that the weapons be retained and put to use. Hezbollah rejects all the formulas being proposed in Lebanon to confine weapons, including taking over positions held by the group, among them Ali al-Taher Hill, which is said to contain dozens of fighters, including members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The group rejects the departure of its fighters after the opening of a safe corridor and the handover of the position to the army.
While Israel is seeking to impose security realities in all the test areas, Ali al-Taher Hill has a different symbolism related to Hezbollah. Israel wants to register an achievement by striking its infrastructure and bringing down its military strategy, which it adopted through the digging of tunnels.
Therefore, the impasse of the hill goes beyond the issue of weapons. Its occupation or destruction, for the Israeli occupation, would bring down a strategic shield that the group adopted as part of the equation it previously raised as a “balance of deterrence,” and as an extension of the destruction of villages, tunnels and homes in the south.
This places on Hezbollah the responsibility to come out of the tunnel and confront the predicament by agreeing on a formula with the state, out of concern for its own community and in order to protect Lebanon.
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter
