Nader Hegaz – Mtv
The direct negotiation process between Lebanon and Israel will begin after two preliminary meetings at the ambassadorial level, one of which was directly sponsored by US President Donald Trump, confirming that peace will soon be reached between the two countries.
Options are narrowing in Beirut, as the American and Israeli pressures are greater than keeping up with them in the Lebanese way by procrastinating and buying time, as happened over a year and a half after the ceasefire agreement in 2024. What is required from the United States is a serious official decision according to a clear road map, which begins with disarming Hezbollah first, and after that all other points can be discussed, from the complete ceasefire to the Israeli withdrawal, border demarcation, and the return of prisoners, which constitute basic Lebanese demands.
In the meantime, Israel is increasing the pace of its attacks, imposing negotiations under fire, and threatening escalatory steps that may reach the point of deepening the ground operation, which it has already done, announcing bypassing the Litani River and positioning itself on the outskirts of the town of Zawtar. This threatens to deteriorate the scene on the ground, especially in light of the failure to date between Iran and the United States on any preliminary understanding.
In parallel, a change is emerging in Hezbollah’s position, seeking to restore lines of communication with the Presidency of the Republic and the Prime Minister, which constitutes a major shift in conjunction with the start of the round of direct face-to-face talks between Beirut and Tel Aviv in Washington… So what has changed?
Political writer Qasim Qasir confirms, in an interview with the MTV website, that Hezbollah has actually assigned a member of the “Loyalty to the Resistance” bloc, Representative Hassan Fadlallah, to communicate with the Presidency of the Republic instead of Representative Muhammad Raad, and assigned Representative Hussein Al-Haj Hassan to communicate with the Presidency of the Government.
He believed that the mere announcement of these two assignments is considered a positive message, adding: “The party is trying to open some door to reconnection, not on the basis of abandoning its principled positions, but rather to encourage the authority to harden its position in the face of Israeli and American pressure.”
Kassir recalled a position issued in recent days by Representative Ali Fayyad, in which he indicated that the authority had begun to change its positions. Does the “party’s” initiative mean a mandate for the state to negotiate in its name and engage in Washington’s negotiations process? Or distribute roles between the Washington and Islamabad tracks?
There is no doubt that Hezbollah is going through a very delicate stage and it realizes that the era that Lebanon and the region are witnessing is pivotal, and that what comes after it is not the same as before it, including its role as an armed organization and its position in the Lebanese regional and internal equation. Representative Fadlallah’s statement about the “party’s” readiness to enter into an internal Lebanese dialogue was noteworthy.
It is clear from this development in Hezbollah’s orientations that there are two speeches: a public speech to preserve the popular incubator, expressed by Sheikh Naeem Qassem on Tuesday by rejecting direct negotiations and insisting on confrontation and completing the battle, and another, more modest speech in search of a way out whether through Pakistani negotiations or the official path that it will have to accompany in one way or another, based on its need for future guarantees related to reconstruction as well as security guarantees.
Hezbollah’s initiative opens the door to major questions, the first of which is the extent of its coordination with Tehran and whether it was at direct Iranian command. Accordingly, will it pave the way for serious consideration of the arms issue as the only key to ending the war and strengthening Lebanon’s position in any round of negotiations?
