Hours before a scheduled meeting between Lebanese and Israeli delegations in Washington on Tuesday evening, the outlines of an encounter described as preparatory rather than negotiatory are becoming clear. The talks are set against a backdrop of conflicting priorities, deep political divisions within Lebanon, and a continued escalation of Israeli military operations.
According to The Independent, the meeting is expected to last approximately one hour and will not result in a joint statement. Lebanon reportedly rejected an Israeli request for a unified communique, opting instead for separate positions to be issued by Beirut and Tel Aviv.
The Lebanese delegation is led by the country’s ambassador to Washington, Nada Moawad. Her primary agenda centers on Lebanese sovereignty in exchange for security in northern Israel. Lebanon’s focus remains on a full Israeli withdrawal from the south, coupled with security arrangements that guarantee an end to attacks on northern Israel.
Lebanese officials recognize that a comprehensive ceasefire is likely not on the table at this stage, according to The Independent. This has opened the door to transitional options, including a return to previous understandings or the negotiation of a new framework.
The meeting is not viewed as a full round of negotiations. Unnamed sources told The Independent that its role is limited to drafting a general framework, with former Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Simon Karam expected to lead actual negotiations at a later stage, supported by a technical team.
Preparations for the meeting have exposed significant friction within the Lebanese political landscape. Sources told The Independent that direct coordination regarding the negotiations took place between President Joseph Aoun and US Ambassador to Beirut Michel Issa, while Prime Minister Nawaf Salam was reportedly not informed in advance. Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri has reportedly offered tacit approval without declaring an official stance.
In a televised interview on Monday, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem announced his categorical rejection of any direct negotiations with Israel. Describing the talks as “futile,” he called for their cancellation, stating that “no one has the right to take Lebanon down this path without internal consensus among its constituents.”
Conflicting priorities
Each party arrives at the table in Washington with a fundamentally different agenda. For Lebanon, the top priorities are a ceasefire—even if temporary—to serve as a gateway for broader talks, an Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied during the war, and the resolution of disputed points along the land border.
Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Mitri told LBCI that the minimum requirement is reaching a truce that allows negotiations to begin. He noted that such discussions typically occur in a calm atmosphere, rather than under the shadow of active military operations.
Similarly, during a meeting with Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani on Monday, Joseph Aoun expressed hope that the Washington meeting would lead to a ceasefire, paving the way for direct negotiations between the two parties. Asharq Al-Awsat also reported, citing an unnamed source, that Ambassador Nada Moawad received instructions from Aoun to demand an immediate ceasefire.
In contrast, Israel is putting forward broader objectives that go beyond immediate security arrangements. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that his country seeks a long-term peace agreement with Lebanon, alongside a core demand for the total disarmament of Hezbollah.
The Independent indicates that Tel Aviv may introduce four additional demands in later stages: the dismissal of the Lebanese Army Commander, the removal of Hezbollah ministers from the cabinet, the freezing of the group’s funding sources and the closure of its institutions, and the issuance of arrest warrants for its leaders. Beirut has not issued an official comment on these proposals.
Israeli media outlets have also revealed a draft plan being prepared for future negotiation phases, which includes dividing South Lebanon into three security zones, according to Al Jazeera.
Under these reported leaks, Israel is demanding a long-term military presence in the border strip until Hezbollah’s weapons are “dismantled.” This would be followed by a gradual withdrawal from areas behind the Blue Line toward the Litani River, which would then be handed over to the Lebanese Army after being “cleared.”
Other reports suggest that Israel does not intend to link negotiations to a cessation of military operations. Instead, it seeks to continue the war in parallel with the diplomatic track, particularly regarding the goal of disarming the group.
Bombardment in South Lebanon
As Washington prepares to host the meeting, developments on the ground reflect no signs of de-escalation. South Lebanon witnessed a series of Israeli airstrikes that resulted in fatalities in several towns, including Adloun and Arab Salim. Other strikes targeted the Bekaa region, claiming the lives of members of a single family, while the Israeli occupation army announced the death of one of its soldiers in South Lebanon.
In response, Hezbollah continued to fire rockets toward Israel, while Israeli forces carried out incursions to seize southern positions, including the strategic town of Bint Jbeil—the largest Lebanese town south of the Litani River.
“We are no longer talking about five positions, but rather a solid and deep security belt in southern Lebanon to remove the danger of an invasion by Hezbollah and distance the threat of anti-tank missiles,” Prime Minister Netanyahu said.
The upcoming meeting appears to be only the first step in a long and complex process, governed by a wide gap between the demands of both parties and internal Lebanese divisions. While Lebanon proposes an equation of sovereignty for security, Israel is pushing to reshape the security balance in the south, extending beyond a ceasefire to include the very structure of power within Lebanon itself.
