1. Home
2. Lebanon
3. From Normalization Hopes to Ceasefire Reality: Israel’s Demands vs. Lebanon’s Preconditions

The issue of normalization has reemerged in Lebanese domestic politics, with each political party leveraging it to serve its own interests. In a development, significant in both substance and timing, US Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff announced that Lebanon would be asked to enter into direct negotiations with Israel. He added that Lebanon should appoint a civilian or nonmilitary figure to lead the talks, while Israel would be represented by Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer. Witkoff also noted that President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam had been encouraged to involve House Speaker Nabih Berri, describing him as one of the few figures capable of playing a central role in the process.

However, Witkoff swiftly denied the statements attributed to him by An-Nahar newspaper, reaffirming Lebanon’s sovereign right to make its own decisions and voicing his support for the current administration.

A few days later, Witkoff stated that “normalization of relations between Lebanon and Syria with Israel has become a real possibility.” Several senior officials from the Trump administration also affirmed that, in light of recent regional developments, Washington was determined to open a political channel between Lebanon and Israel and move forward. Morgan Ortagus, Deputy US Special Envoy to the Middle East, sent a letter to the Lebanese President of the Republic, Prime Minister and Parliament Speaker, urging them to form three committees that would address the issues of detainees, the five hills occupied by Israel and the thirteen disputed points along the Blue Line.

Berri responded by reaffirming his strong commitment to the implementation of UN Resolution 1701, underscoring its central role in the ceasefire agreement. He emphasized the importance of addressing ongoing violations and Israeli aggression since the war's conclusion before any discussions on border demarcation could take place.

Presidential sources also confirmed that the three-committee-proposition is part of a broader effort to implement Resolution 1701, and that these committees will not engage in direct negotiations.

Israel is seeking to capitalize on regional developments, particularly in Syria, to pressure Lebanon into direct negotiations over all unresolved issues. To this end, it has disregarded the ceasefire agreement by establishing positions at five strategically significant locations. Israel has also asserted the right to violate Lebanese airspace, conduct airstrikes, carry out operations and assassinate Hezbollah’s leaders, while destroying weapon storage facilities. These actions are part of Israel's broader strategy to force Lebanon into direct negotiations.

Israel's justification for engaging in negotiations with Lebanon over the demarcation of its southern land border is fundamentally flawed, as Lebanon's southern border with Palestine have been clearly defined since 1932 and are internationally recognized under the armistice agreement signed on March 23, 1949, between Lebanon and Israel. Article 5 of the agreement explicitly states, “The boundary line follows the international border between Lebanon and Palestine.”

A former official states, “There is no dispute over border points between Lebanon and Israel, as both countries adhere to the armistice agreement signed by officials from both sides —Lieutenant Colonel Tawfiq Salem and Captain Joseph Harb from Lebanon, and Lieutenant Colonel Mordechai Maklef, Yehoshua Belman and Shabtai Rosen from Israel. This is why Lebanon did not participate in the wars of 1965 and 1973, as there was no border dispute with Israel.”

The same official asserts that the situation changed after Israel's occupation of the Kfarchouba Hills and Shebaa Farms in Lebanon, and after Lebanon's signing of the Cairo Agreement, which allowed Palestinians to conduct operations against Israel from the Fatah Land area in the south. As a result, Lebanon became the only Arab front open for Palestinian operations against Israel. This led to disruptions along the southern border, ultimately resulting in Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the expulsion of the Palestinian leadership to Tunisia and the withdrawal of Palestinian fighters from Lebanon.

In 2000, Israel took advantage of its withdrawal from Lebanon by refusing to recognize the international border, instead insisting on the Blue Line—the line of its withdrawal—and treating it as the border. This position resulted in a dispute over 13 border points from which Israel had not withdrawn, thereby maintaining control over nearly 484,800 square meters of land. These areas included the following locations: Ras al-Naqoura, Marwahin, Alma al-Shaab (3 locations), Al-Bustan, Rmeish, Yaroun, Odaisseh, Kfar Kila, Mays al-Jabal, Metula and Blida. In addition, Israel currently occupies five points: Labbouneh Hills, Jabal Blat, Jal al-Deir, Markaba and Tal al-Hamames, along with buffer zones in Dhayra, Bastra and the Kfar Kila-Odaisseh road.

In this context, Lebanon is calling for Israel's withdrawal from these points and requesting that UNIFIL forces, along with American and French teams, oversee the area through a supervisory committee. Hezbollah officials have made it clear that the group will not relinquish its weapons as long as Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory. This position, in turn, prevents Lebanon from receiving reconstruction aid, as donor countries require the state to have exclusive control over weapons—a condition that cannot be fulfilled as long as Israel remains in the south.

Finally, the same official emphasizes that the resolution of the border dispute hinges on Israel's recognition of the international border as outlined in the armistice agreement, rather than the Blue Line. The peace that Israel advocates, and that Washington supports, must be grounded in several essential conditions: an end to Israeli violations, Israel's withdrawal from all occupied territories, including Shebaa and Kfarchouba, as well as the release of Lebanese prisoners. The creation of an independent Palestinian State and the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes are also essential elements in stabilizing the region and bringing the conflict to an end.