Stage negative: what are the negotiations between Israel and Lebanon leading to?

The Middle East is teetering on the brink of another escalation — at least, this is the impression given by the overall dynamics of the Israeli-Lebanese talks in Washington. The Israelis continue their military pressure: attacks on the Arab country were carried out right up to the start of the meeting. There is also unrest in Israel itself, where the ruling coalition was forced to initiate steps to dissolve the Knesset and hold early elections due to opposition attempts to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Statements about the imminent resumption of hostilities against Iran have also become more frequent. However, the experts interviewed by Izvestia believe that, although the conclusion of a long-term agreement is unlikely, the situation will remain peaceful for the time being. Because it is beneficial to all parties.

Who participated in the negotiations

The background on the eve of the third round of negotiations in the Washington format, which began on May 14 and may last as early as Friday, has noticeably deteriorated compared to the previous ones. Israeli strikes on May 13-14 killed 22 Lebanese. In total, during the current ceasefire agreement, which came into force on April 17, the number of victims exceeded 400 people.

Israel has unilaterally violated the "regime of silence" at least several times by striking central Lebanon. In particular, the commander of Hezbollah's elite forces, Malek Ballut, was eliminated, but at least 39 local residents were killed, whom the Israelis listed as "collateral damage." This is not understood by Beirut, which had previously been guaranteed "stability and a cease-fire" throughout the territory north of the Litani River. The Israeli side, in turn, regularly accuses Hezbollah of violating the truce.

On the Lebanese side, in addition to Ambassador Nada Hamadeh Moawad, Lebanon's special envoy and former Ambassador to the United States, Simon Karam, as well as several senior diplomats and civilian officials participated in the talks. The Israeli delegation, on the other hand, was tilted towards the power bloc. Along with Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Yehiel Leiter, Deputy National Security Adviser Yossi Draznin and a number of senior military representatives, whose names were not disclosed, took part in the discussion of further peace contours.

It is already noticeable from the negotiators involved that both sides define the settlement tasks in different ways. Israel tends to focus on military aspects, while Lebanon brings civilian issues to the fore, political analyst Dastan Tokoldoshev said in an interview with Izvestia.

— It is important for West Jerusalem to consolidate any success on the foreign policy and military track, especially against the background of internal contradictions, as well as to make efforts to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon and minimize the risks of a clash with pro-Iranian armed groups. Beirut, in turn, seeks to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and resolve the long—standing conflict by non-military means," Tokoldoshev concluded.

The United States is not losing interest in Lebanon

It is also interesting that, in contrast to the expanded delegations of Lebanon and Israel, the number of American representatives at the talks, on the contrary, decreased. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, were not present at the discussions due to their participation in the presidential visit to China. Formally, the American negotiating team was led by State Department Adviser Michael Needham, and he was assisted by country Ambassadors Mike Huckabee and Michel Issou. Representatives of the Pentagon participated indirectly in the discussions.

As a result, it seems that Washington is trying to distance itself from the deadlocked negotiating line and to maximize the routine resolution of Lebanese-Israeli tensions. However, as Alexey Yurk, a researcher at the E.M. Primakov Center for Middle Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained in an interview with Izvestia, the situation remains generally typical. The United States, despite the apparent weakening of attention, has not lost interest in the Lebanese-Israeli settlement. And they even see a certain potential in it.

— Against the background of the stalling of peace talks with Iran, the United States needs some kind of diplomatic breakthrough, so the Lebanese-Israeli settlement is quite suitable, especially since the Lebanese authorities are generally not against it. In addition, it can be viewed directly in relation to the main Iranian negotiations, since a stable truce on the Lebanese front was one of Tehran's demands," he said.

At the same time, the expert advises not to pin high hopes on a settlement of US-Iranian tensions through Lebanon, including because the issue of Hezbollah disarmament remains a stumbling block between Israel and Lebanon. The parties cannot agree on the timing or format of the implementation of this plan, even if Washington consistently puts pressure on both delegations.

"As a result, a long—term agreement between Beirut and West Jerusalem becomes unlikely," Jurk believes.

Hezbollah is also contributing to the uncertainty. Shiite militias continue to launch attacks against the Israeli army, including gradually increasing the frequency of UAV launches in the direction of border settlements, and the ongoing Lebanese-Israeli consultations are considered "artificial." "The current negotiations are an American agenda in which the Lebanese government is being used to confront resistance rather than occupation," said Mahmoud Komati, deputy head of Hezbollah's political council.

At the same time, the movement's position remains tough: Hezbollah rejects the idea of concluding a direct peace agreement with Israel following the example of Egypt and Jordan, arguing that Israel "does not comply with the agreements."

Israel is preparing for early elections

Despite the fact that Israel is playing from a position of strength in negotiations with Lebanon, the situation inside the country remains tense. In addition to the continuing threat of shelling of border settlements in the north (which provokes the discontent of local settlers and hits the ratings of the ruling coalition), the parliamentary crisis has escalated, provoking legislative paralysis.

Ultra-Orthodox parties, disappointed with the course of Benjamin Netanyahu, initiated the procedure for dissolving the Knesset. The opposition supported this initiative, hoping to take advantage of the fall in the cabinet's ratings and seize control of parliament, and in the long run, to oust Netanyahu and his supporters from power. However, the government camp was able to regain the initiative fairly quickly. Already on May 14, the chairman of the coalition, Ofir Katz (the ruling Likud party), together with the heads of the factions, submitted a bill to dissolve the Knesset and set a new election date. It is assumed that the deputies will discuss it on May 20. And at the same time, they will propose a date for voting.

Netanyahu's supporters plan to hold elections no later than the first half of September, which is almost a month and a half earlier than originally planned. This is necessary in order to prevent the opposition from mobilizing the electorate and developing a more relevant program. In addition, postponing the voting date to the beginning of autumn will give the coalition a chance to play on patriotic sentiments and add several mandates from doubting groups.

Amid the aggravation of internal problems, Israeli officials have once again started talking about the imminent resumption of hostilities against Iran. As Defense Minister Yisrael Katz noted, Israel "must complete the objectives of the campaign in such a way as to ensure that Iran no longer poses a threat to the existence of Israel and the United States." Netanyahu's opponents broadcast similar assessments. However, with the caveat that the coalition may initiate a military operation to save its ratings and consolidate the patriotic unity of society.

— Israel may well threaten the United States behind the scenes with the resumption of hostilities in the Gulf region as part of its "proactive defense" strategy. And with the help of such threats, they will push through more favorable terms of a peace agreement with Lebanon," said political analyst Advan Hisham.

At the same time, from the point of view of strategic planning, Israel will strive to maximize the stabilization of the Lebanese direction before the start of a new Iranian campaign. Including attempts to avoid a war on several fronts. This means that the dialogue with Beirut will maintain its previous momentum.