Agreement with Lebanon: The Untried Option

Background

The "Lion's Roar" war (as a resident of the Upper Galilee, I insist on calling it a war) was halted

by American coercion. As I have written in the past, the moment there is no identity of interest

between Israel and our friend, the American interest prevails.

The fighting was stopped before the completion of the IDF's operational plan. The plan did not

include the dismantling or destruction of Hezbollah which was never on the agenda for this

round as it can only occur through a political process and by severing Hezbollah from its

Iranian funding sources. The current military move was intended to create significant leverage

on the Lebanese government while significantly weakening Hezbollah and creating the option

for a diplomatic move. This goal was partially achieved. Hezbollah remains relatively isolated in

the campaign, under heavy pressure from casualties, loss of territory, and a partial

undermining of trust even by the Shiites themselves. This situation strengthens the opportunity

for a political settlement with Lebanon, but also creates a risk that, given the distress Hezbollah

faces, it may initiate a move that ignites a new civil war in Lebanon.

President Joseph Aoun (Maronite) and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam (Sunni) represent a new

generation of leaders in Lebanese politics who strive for real change in the country and are

less committed to the old order. Nabih Berri (Shiite), Speaker of the Parliament and leader of

the Amal movement, remains a key figure among Shiites. Known as a pragmatic professional

political survivor accepted by Hezbollah, Berri may serve as a mediator who cooperates

primarily for his own benefit and the survival of the Amal movement, as he has done in the past

with Israel.

The direct negotiations with Lebanon that we are currently beginning is an opportunity in

which Israel must be the leader, with the United States acting as a sponsor and nothing more.

Today's statements by Ahmad al-Sharaa, President of Syria, regarding his desire to sign a

security arrangement with Israel, further strengthen Israel’s position when discussing terms

with the Lebanese government, provided that the Israeli government indeed takes the lead in

these diplomatic moves.

The Saudi Card and the Paradigm Shift

Israel should invite Saudi Arabia to be an equal partner in managing negotiations with Lebanon

and "bring out of the closet" the semi-overt relationship existing between the two countries.

Involving the Saudis in the negotiations will provide them with a pretext to stop placing the

Palestinian issue as an obstacle in the relationship with Israel and instead focus on the shared

interest of stabilization in Lebanon, a matter of greater importance to Saudi interests. Saudi

Arabia has been involved in Lebanese affairs for the past fifty years, including the formulation

of the Taif Agreement signed in 1991 (which officially ended the Lebanese Civil War), its

support for Rafic al-Hariri for Prime Minister, and its support for the Sunni community.

Israel and Saudi Arabia share interests in establishing peace between Israel and Lebanon and

rehabilitating Lebanon as a sovereign state. The primary interests at stake include:

● Curbing Iranian takeover of Lebanon, both politically and religiously, by eradicating

Hezbollah.

● Positioning Saudi Arabia as the leader and protector of the Sunni community.

● Establishing a strong alternative to Turkish influence in Syria.

● Leading the economic rehabilitation and development of Lebanon.

● Technological and security cooperation with Israel in the fields of military, agriculture,

water, and high-tech.

● Creating a coalition with Israel and moderate Sunni states in the Persian Gulf.

● Eliminating the Captagon industry that harms Saudi society.

The Role of the United States

The United States should participate in the negotiations with Lebanon as a sponsor. Such an

agreement, which would also lead to an agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, is a top

priority within the framework of building the American "India-Middle East Corridor".

However, cumulative experience with the current administration teaches us three things:1. The American negotiation team acts in haste to sign agreements without closing all loose

ends, which is entirely unsuitable for the Middle East where every agreement must be

finalized down to the smallest detail.

2. 3. It is important that we establish a habit with our neighbors of speaking directly to one

another rather than through mediators who are far removed from our culture, customs,

and interests in our own neighborhood.

While the Americans are interested in reaching arrangements between Israel and its

neighbors and expanding the Abraham Accords, they lack the necessary focus

(attentiveness) required for this.

The Israeli Approach

Israel enters negotiations from a position of power, as a regional military and technological

superpower, and with leverage over Hezbollah and Lebanon.

However, we must adopt an approach of humility and patience and refrain from issuing

absolute or threatening declarations and conditions. We must take a leading position in striving

to sign peace agreements at the end of the road, but along the way, it may be right and

necessary to sign a non-belligerency pact or another type of arrangement. This would allow

the other side to agree to it and cope with it before their own public. This is true for Lebanon as

well as Syria.