1. Home
2. Lebanon
3. Direct vs. Indirect Negotiations: Lebanon’s Diplomatic Playbook Reexamined

In the wake of the Gaza ceasefire brokered on October 13 by Donald Trump, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun issued a statement that raised more than a few eyebrows, and possibilities.

“The Lebanese state has already negotiated with Israel under American and UN mediation, resulting in the maritime border agreement… So why not adopt the same approach to resolve other outstanding issues?” he stated in an official communiqué.

He added: “Today, the overall atmosphere favors compromise. Negotiations are essential. The framework will be determined in due time.”

Behind the measured tone of the statement lies a fundamental question for Lebanese diplomacy: how does a state engage in dialogue with a country it officially designates as an enemy?

Direct vs. Indirect Negotiations: What’s the Difference?

In international relations, two main approaches shape how countries negotiate: direct and indirect negotiations.

Direct negotiations involve face-to-face dialogue between the parties. This method fosters political engagement and can build trust over time. However, it requires mutual recognition, something currently absent between Lebanon and Israel.

In contrast, indirect negotiations rely on a third-party mediator who shuttles messages between the two sides. These talks often occur in technical or confidential settings, with no direct communication between the delegations. The intermediary, typically a foreign power or international organization, facilitates the exchange, allowing progress on delicate issues without triggering political backlash at home.

This second model is especially common when the parties are in conflict or lack formal diplomatic ties. Lebanon and Israel, officially at war since 1948, are a textbook case of states that rely on indirect channels.

A Precedent: The “Grapes of Wrath” 1996 Ceasefire Agreement

One of the few precedents for indirect negotiations between Lebanon and Israel is the April 26, 1996 ceasefire agreement, which followed Israel’s military campaign known as “Operation Grapes of Wrath.” Informally brokered by the United States, the agreement aimed to halt hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.

The deal established key commitments: both sides agreed to refrain from targeting civilians and from launching attacks from within populated areas. To oversee its implementation, a Monitoring Committee was formed, comprising representatives from the United States, France, Syria, Israel, and Lebanon. This multilateral body was tasked with monitoring violations and facilitating indirect communication between the parties.

Though limited in scope and duration, the mechanism helped stabilize southern Lebanon for several years. In February 2024, several diplomatic sources cited by Axios indicated that this 1996 agreement was being referenced as a potential framework for structuring a new ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian factions in Gaza, underscoring its continued relevance as a model for indirect negotiation in protracted conflicts.

The 2022 Maritime Agreement: A Modern Precedent

In October 2022, after more than a decade of US-led mediation, Lebanon and Israel reached a landmark agreement on their maritime border, resolving a long-disputed area of 860 square kilometers in the Mediterranean Sea.

The talks, held under UN auspices in Naqoura and facilitated by American envoys, involved no direct communication between the two delegations. Still, the result was significant. According to the Atlantic Council, the agreement averted a possible military escalation, provided a temporary sense of stability in southern Lebanon, and created an opportunity for gas exploration, a crucial economic lifeline for a country in deep crisis.

For Israel, the agreement ensured uninterrupted development of the Karish gas field. While focused on a technical issue, the deal proved that patient, indirect diplomacy could move forward even in the absence of normalization or diplomatic ties.

Past Instances of Direct Talks, Now Overlooked

Though often downplayed today, Lebanon has previously engaged in direct negotiations with Israel.

The most prominent example is the May 17, 1983 Agreement, signed under US mediation following Israel’s 1982 invasion. It was designed to end the state of war and facilitate an Israeli withdrawal. However, the deal was abandoned less than a year later under Syrian pressure, and never implemented.

Another example came in the early 1990s, when Lebanon took part in direct bilateral talks with Israel as part of the Madrid Peace Process. These discussions, while symbolically important, also failed to produce any lasting results.

International Examples

Around the world, some conflicts have been resolved through indirect channels. For instance, the Oslo Accords (1993) between Israel and the PLO began with secret negotiations held in Norway.

Likewise, China and Vietnam were able to reach a maritime agreement in 2000 after years of tension, once their diplomatic relations were normalized. These examples illustrate that even in the absence of formal recognition, a structured process grounded in international law and facilitated by mediation can result in durable agreements.

What Now?

The most viable approach remains indirect negotiations on specific issues, backed by strong international sponsorship, a model that the Atlantic Council considers the most realistic amid ongoing hostility.

As the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs points out, this kind of process does not solve everything but can “generate a regional momentum for cooperation on practical matters,” such as energy or border security. Without full peace, negotiated stability is still achievable.

Recently, Nabih Berri confirmed this cautious shift. In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, the Speaker of Parliament stated that “the negotiation proposal was rejected because Tel Aviv was not receptive to the American suggestion.”

He added that the only remaining path is the committee overseeing the November 2024 ceasefire. The return to indirect diplomacy is now evident. The committee, which will meet every two weeks, is becoming the main communication channel between the two sides.

Avoiding dialogue is believed to prevent war, but it only serves to prolong its causes.