The spotlight is on the upcoming round of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel next week, now relocated to Rome amid renewed tensions between the US and Iran, and the impending visit of Lebanese President Jozef Aoun to meet President Trump in Washington on July 1.
Days ahead of the talks, Ma’ariv newspaper revealed Lebanon’s intention to demand a clear timetable for the Israeli army's withdrawal from Lebanese territories as a condition for progressing in political communications between the two countries. This demand could turn the negotiations into a key test for the developing political trajectory between Israel and Lebanon, with Beirut desiring specific commitments from Israel and the US.
The talks, scheduled for 15-16 July in Rome under US mediation with Italian hosting, will mark the sixth direct communication attempt since the political path was resumed. Italy’s Foreign Ministry announced the talks will occur at the ambassadorial level, with Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani confirming Rome as the hosting ground. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar stated that Israel has no regional aspirations in Lebanon.
According to Ma’ariv, the expected Lebanese demand addresses a major weakness in the US-mediated framework agreement, notwithstanding its aim for gradual Lebanese military expansion in the south, disarmament of Hezbollah, and other armed factions, without a final mandatory timeline for Israel's full withdrawal. Lebanon fears that without such a timeline, Israel might prolong its military presence indefinitely.
Sources reported that Lebanon is expected to communicate to the US and Israel that its government cannot further political discussions or future arrangements without clearer Israeli withdrawal commitments. The Lebanese position, reinforced by PM Nawaf Salam, emphasizes full Israeli withdrawal as the negotiation's goal.
Salam has also called for the release of detainees, resolution of border issues, and continued UNIFIL presence, even post-agreement. Domestically, Salam insists this path is about regaining full Lebanese sovereignty, not succumbing to external pressure.
Contrastingly, Israel maintains a much tougher position. Defense Minister Yisrael Katz affirmed Israel will not withdraw regardless of US pressure, citing the strategic necessity for an operational presence to protect northern Israeli towns, and linking withdrawal to Hezbollah's disarmament.
In current operations, the Israeli military maintains a 10-kilometer buffer zone along the border, involving raids, infrastructure demolitions, and barring resident returns. Initial agreement phases imply Israel would withdraw from 'test areas' in southern Lebanon, possibly leading to broader territorial handover if successful.
According to the report, Lebanon believes limited trials are insufficient and demands a defined political mechanism setting a clear process and deadline. The essential contention remains: Lebanon sees withdrawal as an Israeli political obligation with a clear timeline, versus Israel's position tying it to field developments.
US attempts to reconcile the two stances will support Israeli demands for Hezbollah disarmament and the enhancement of the Lebanese army while acknowledging Lebanon's need for genuine withdrawal prospects to validate sovereignty strength in Beirut.
In the backdrop, opposition from Hezbollah, a non-negotiation participant yet a central figure in the settlement, looms large. Salam aims to avoid direct confrontation with Hezbollah while reinforcing the idea that Lebanese arms should remain solely with the state.
The anticipated Rome talks will focus on whether Israeli withdrawal becomes a future condition or an immediate action with a clear timeline, echoing Lebanon's demands for sovereignty reclamation.
In his latest statement, President Aoun highlighted his upcoming Washington trip as a testament to US support for a lasting resolution to Israeli conflicts against Lebanon.