Israel's Ambassador to Washington, Yehiel Leiter, stated that Israel "will not remain in Lebanon once Hezbollah is disarmed." This statement introduces a conditional equation regarding Israel's withdrawal from the south, linking any military pullback to the removal of what Tel Aviv considers a direct security threat on its northern border.
Leiter's remarks come at a sensitive phase in negotiations sponsored by the United States, which aims to establish a new political and security framework between Lebanon and Israel. This framework would involve ceasing military actions and reorganizing the field situation in the south, with Lebanon extending full authority through its army, while Israel conducts a gradual withdrawal from its positions.
The Israeli ambassador's comments convey a clear message: Israel's presence in Lebanon is not an objective but a pressure tactic linked to Hezbollah’s armament. Tel Aviv is attempting to present its withdrawal as a conditional outcome rather than a prior commitment. Meanwhile, Lebanon insists that any negotiation should start with a complete Israeli withdrawal, cessation of hostilities, and reaffirmation of Lebanese sovereignty.
Negotiations reportedly involve a phased security arrangement, including expanded deployment of the Lebanese army in specific southern areas and enhanced monitoring and coordination mechanisms with U.S. support. Discussions also focus on the future of Hezbollah's military infrastructure in the south and whether this issue can evolve into a long-term process without escalating domestic conflict.
The major sticking point remains the order of priorities. Israel demands clear security assurances before withdrawal, linking any field actions to a reduction in Hezbollah’s military capabilities. Lebanese opponents of this proposal reject making withdrawal a conditional reward, viewing any Israeli presence in Lebanon as an additional source of tension rather than a solution.
Washington aims to promote the agreement as an opportunity for Lebanon to reclaim its security decision-making, reinstating peace in the south and linking stability to reconstruction and financial and military support for the Lebanese army. However, internal Lebanese divisions over the meaning of "disarmament," the army's role, and guarantees against turning the south into a domestic conflict zone pose challenges.
Leiter's comments follow more stringent Israeli positions in recent days, with officials stating that withdrawal will only occur after the threat posed by Hezbollah to northern settlements is removed, attempting to establish a new dynamic: no return to pre-war conditions and no unconditional pullback without verifiable security arrangements.
Conversely, Lebanon views the issue differently: any agreement lacking clear withdrawal, an end to hostilities, and the initiation of reconstruction may lead to political and popular tension. It's not just about military sites or deployment lines but full sovereignty and the state's ability to handle a sensitive issue without escalating to internal conflict over Hezbollah’s armament.
This puts negotiations to a tough test: Can the "arms for withdrawal" equation become an executable political pathway, or might mutual conditions render the agreement theoretically inapplicable? The ambassador's declarations align with an Israeli attempt to solidify its narrative with the U.S. administration and international public opinion: withdrawal is possible but contingent upon Israel deeming the northern border threat neutralized.
As Lebanon calls for complete withdrawal, Israel demands disarmament of Hezbollah, and the U.S. pushes for a phased settlement, the south remains caught between diplomacy and battlefield realities, with each statement from Washington, Tel Aviv, or Beirut becoming a piece of an ongoing negotiation battle shaping the next phase.