Beirut, Lebanon - After a third round of US-brokered talks in Washington, Lebanese and Israeli delegations on Friday agreed to a 45-day extension of the 16 April ceasefire, setting the stage for future negotiations along security and political tracks.
Former ambassador Simon Karam led the Lebanese negotiating team opposite Israeli ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter.
Both parties, for the first time, included military officials in addition to other deputies, and State Department counsellor Michael Needham replaced US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the latter accompanying President Donald Trump on his visit to China.
The talks are fraught with stumbling blocks on all sides, from Israel’s intransigence to Lebanon’s fragmented approach and the US administration’s inability to mediate as a neutral party.
Despite Trump and Rubio personally backing the early talks, the framing of the negotiations has drawn criticism. “The practical upshot is humiliating Lebanon’s authorities and failing to deliver a real ceasefire in exchange,” Sam Heller, fellow at Century International, told The New Arab .
The morning after the announcement of the first ceasefire, tens of thousands of people waited in standstill traffic on the coastal highway from Beirut to Tyre as they attempted to return to their homes in the south. The next day, the opposite lane was filled with cars streaming north again, as many realised their homes were no longer standing .
Hostilities have continued largely unabated, with Israeli attacks killing more than 700 people since 16 April, according to the Lebanese health ministry. Hezbollah regularly targets Israeli soldiers and military positions in the occupied south, while Israeli forces target medical and emergency response workers and raze entire villages to the ground. Diplomacy for an American audience Despite a 2 May decision to outlaw Hezbollah’s military activities, the Lebanese government and Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have proven unable to curtail the group’s attacks or limit its freedom of action. The Lebanese foreign ministry also attempted to expel the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, a move Iran defied.
Forced to negotiate from a position of weakness, the Lebanese government is pursuing diplomacy that appears designed to curry favour with the Americans in the hopes that President Trump will intercede on Lebanon’s behalf.
“Some of the more symbolic moves by the Salam government and the foreign ministry - even though the follow-through and practical effect of those were limited, they were nonetheless received positively in Washington,” Heller said.
By asserting its competency to negotiate on its own behalf, the Lebanese government is signalling independence from Iranian influence and getting buy-in from the Americans.
“The momentum is real because the formula is finally being discussed clearly: strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces, create a credible process for Hezbollah’s disarmament, tie Israeli withdrawal to verifiable state enforcement and move toward a permanent end to the conflict instead of another temporary truce that simply delays the next war,” Fadi Nicholas Nassar, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told The New Arab .
Nonetheless, it remains unclear what kind of backing the Lebanese state can expect from a US administration closely bound to Israel’s war aims. In press releases after the latest two rounds of negotiation, the State Department reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself and cited Hezbollah’s continued attacks as threatening the peace process.
No mention was made of Israel’s ongoing targeting of civilians, including more than 100 medical workers since 2 March, and its occupation of parts of southern Lebanon. A patchwork approach to talks Despite good faith attempts at engagement, Lebanon overestimated Trump’s willingness or ability to curtail Israeli aggression.
“They misunderstand the international atmosphere now, they misunderstand the American scene, they misunderstand the geopolitics and the balance of power in the region,” a diplomatic source with knowledge of the negotiations told The New Arab .
The Lebanese government’s inability to obtain concessions during these negotiations also stems from an apparent lack of preparedness and communication failures.
Initial contact between Lebanese ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad and Israeli ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter was described as exploratory, but talks quickly developed into a more consequential process.
“The problem is we don’t know what the terms of reference are for these negotiations,” the diplomatic source said.
Beyond occasional references to the previous November 2024 ceasefire agreement, the Lebanese government has not clarified its starting point or outlined objectives consistent with previous UN resolutions or armistice agreements.
Lebanon now risks rushing into a more comprehensive political and security deal suiting Israeli interests and offering no defined path toward Israeli withdrawal and support for reconstruction.
The position is made especially tenuous by proceeding with negotiations before securing domestic consensus. Parliament speaker Nabih Berri, the most senior Shia politician in Lebanon, has not blocked the diplomatic track, but emphasised that a true ceasefire must be a precondition of negotiations and opposed normalisation.
Neglecting consultations with local leaders and a patchwork negotiating strategy have put the Lebanese government’s efforts on shaky ground. Domestic response For its part, Hezbollah continues to reject direct negotiations, “which represent pure gains for Israel and free concessions by the Lebanese authorities”. The group maintains that Lebanon’s security is an internal matter and has vowed to continue opposing the presence of Israeli troops in the country.
Hezbollah’s ability to sustain a prolonged military confrontation, in part due to command and control reforms instituted by Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) advisors and the use of low-cost fibre optic drones , has strengthened its political position in Lebanon, rallying support among its traditional Shia base and complicating future disarmament efforts.
If the Lebanese authorities followed through on US-Israeli demands to reclaim a monopoly on arms and the use of force, Heller said, “there could well be a violent reaction from Hezbollah or like-minded elements of the Lebanese public”.
At the same time, withdrawal from the negotiations or a breakdown in talks could threaten the Lebanese government and societal cohesion as well.
“If these negotiations fail and the Israelis are entrenched,” the diplomatic source said, “both the government and the president will pay a very big political price for it, and they should understand that and work accordingly.” Israel's unclear commitments Israel, meanwhile, shows no signs of slowing its attacks. Although Beirut has largely been spared since the ceasefire announcement, the Israeli military continues to demolish entire villages in southern Lebanon and has pushed ahead with its establishment of a “ security zone ” north of the border.
Ahead of the recent talks in Washington, Leiter made plain Israel’s double-dealing. “The focus is now on, number one, reaching a peace treaty, as if there's no Hezbollah, and fighting Hezbollah as if there's no peace treaty. And I think we're going to accomplish both,” he said .
As Iran talks stall, Israel has also succeeded in separating the two negotiation tracks in an attempt to isolate Hezbollah from its powerful state sponsor. Israel now sets its sights on a comprehensive agreement with Lebanon - one with significant hurdles to clear as the two countries do not maintain formal diplomatic ties - while excluding Shia representation. Civilians pay the price Despite the ceasefire extension, Lebanese civilians have no security guarantees of their own, and hundreds of thousands remain displaced. As of 13 May, more than 10,000 housing units in Lebanon have been damaged or destroyed, according to the National Council for Scientific Research.
Ongoing conflict and the demolition of civilian infrastructure mean displacement will become increasingly protracted for a significant portion of Lebanese, particularly Shia, whose towns and neighbourhoods remain under evacuation warnings from the Israeli military.
Hezbollah’s base looks to the group not only as a form of political representation at the national level but also as a local service provider, offering security, standing up to the Israeli military and, in the past, partially responsible for reconstruction efforts. Wide swathes of Lebanese society support negotiations and Hezbollah’s disarmament, but Israel’s tactics risk further entrenching the group.
In exacting such a high toll on the community and levying disproportionate violence against the Lebanese people, Israel risks “creating the same conditions they said they are there to stop,” according to the diplomatic source.
“If the Israelis actually agreed to exercise meaningful restraint, if they indicated some willingness to cease fire in some form or to lay the groundwork for eventual withdrawal, then the government could take credit for that,” Heller said.
Securing such concessions could better position the Lebanese state for consolidating its authority and demonstrating that citizens do not need to rely on Hezbollah to fight their battles.
The trajectory of negotiations thus far, however, indicates Israel is not interested in curtailing its military ambitions and allowing Lebanese authorities the space to take action. Paul Hefel-James is an independent journalist based in Beirut, covering migration and refugee issues, the humanitarian sector and conflict Follow him on X: @paul_hj_ Edited by Charlie Hoyle