The new round of war between Israel and Hizbullah, now in its third week, has begun to escalate amid reports of a French offer to sponsor direct negotiations between the Lebanese government and Israel in exchange for an immediate halt to the war and Israeli withdrawal.
This suggests that the rift between Hizbullah and the Lebanese government could broaden to more precarious proportions as the Shia group continues to fight on its own, while the government moves to negotiate an end to the conflict in a way that decouples Lebanon from the Iranian factor.
When it retaliated for the Israeli-US assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Hizbullah forfeited the political cover previously provided by the Lebanese government, which passed a resolution criminalising the group’s military activities and calling for its prosecution.
It also lost some of its grassroots support because of the sudden harm renewed the Israeli bombardments inflicted on Lebanese civilians. Hizbullah argued that Israel was going to attack Lebanon again in any case, a position later confirmed by Israeli statements.
However, many Lebanese felt that Hizbullah had been called into action by Iran rather than basing its actions on Lebanon’s immediate needs. Others oppose the group’s monopolisation of decisions on war and peace, while questioning its ability to pose a sufficient threat to force Israel to back down.
Meanwhile, losses suffered by the Lebanese continue to mount during the Israeli military campaign in Lebanon. By the start of the third week of the war, casualties had reached approximately 850 dead, including 107 children and 66 women, and 2,105 injured, including 331 children and 359 women.
In addition, around a million Lebanese citizens have been displaced again from southern Lebanon, the Bekaa, and the Dahiyeh district of Beirut.
The rift between Hizbullah and the Lebanese government is nearly complete. Communications have been severed between it and both the president and the prime minister. The same does not apply to the speaker of parliament, despite his objections to Hizbullah’s decision to go to war without consulting its allies.
More significantly, the government, under an initiative by President Joseph Aoun, has entered negotiations with Israel without Hizbullah’s consent.
Aoun contacted French President Emmanuel Macron to ask him to urge Israel to cease bombarding Lebanese civilian infrastructure during its aggression. The government then offered to negotiate directly with Israel under French sponsorship in exchange for an immediate ceasefire and the launch of an expanded political track.
Within this framework, the two sides would negotiate an agreement that would include non-aggression commitments and the demarcation of the shared border. It signals the current Lebanese government’s willingness to reach a comprehensive agreement that would likely culminate in the full recognition of Israel by Lebanon and would mark the most significant political development since the Lebanon-Israel agreement of 17 May 1983 during the Israeli occupation of the country.
It is unclear how the Lebanese public will receive such a step and how much support it would garner in parliament, especially given how Israeli assaults during the past two years have deepened anti-Israeli sentiments.
As angry as many Lebanese may be at Hizbullah’s decision to enter the war alongside Iran, this does not mean they are ready for a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel.
Hizbullah itself appears to have adopted the Iranian approach: digging in for a protracted battle and rejecting negotiations with Israel more than ever. It has long opposed direct negotiations with the enemy, although it has engaged in indirect technical-military negotiations over some specific issues.
Given this resolve, an end to the hostilities in Lebanon will be largely contingent on the trajectory of the US-Israeli aggression against Iran. However, Iran appears not only to be holding its ground but also escalating the conflict and even perhaps calling into play newly developed missiles. The US also appears bent on escalation and may even deploy ground forces in the Strait of Hormuz, meaning that the war that Israel and the US launched against Iran has no off-ramp at present.
The Lebanese initiative passed to Israel through the French aims to delink that war from Israel’s war on Lebanon. The reasoning is that there is no guarantee that a halt to the US war against Iran, whether through a US victory or an agreement negotiated with Tehran, would compel Israel to halt its aggression against Lebanon.
The French hope to encourage the two sides to come to terms over a comprehensive agreement to end the war as opposed to a ceasefire, which Israel would merely breach, as occurred nearly daily under the previous ceasefire.
According to a plan devised by the French, a six-member Lebanese diplomatic team of ambassadorial rank will negotiate face-to-face with an Israeli delegation in Cyprus or Paris. The negotiations would cover the provisions for a durable ceasefire leading to the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces in the areas from which Israeli forces withdraw within one month.
The talks would then turn to political and security measures to prevent renewed hostilities, the deployment of international monitors along the border, and the demarcation of the land border.
Not surprisingly, Hizbullah has rejected the French plan out of hand, expressing its surprise at the Lebanese government’s willingness to make more concessions despite Israel’s flagrant violations of previous agreements.
Mahmoud Qomati, deputy chair of Hizbullah’s Political Council, observed that the French and Americans had failed to compel Israel to fulfil its commitments under previous agreements and to activate the agreed-upon mechanism for bringing Israel to task for its ceasefire breaches.
He also criticised the Lebanese government for taking actions aimed at normalising relations with Israel in the middle of an Israeli aggression. He described these steps as “sinful” and warned that they pitted the Lebanese army against the resistance, adding that the government would have found it more advantageous to leverage it as a negotiating card.
Hizbullah was not alone in voicing objections to the French plan. The Lebanese speaker of parliament held that negotiations should not occur before the war had ended and displaced people were able to return to their homes.
Meanwhile, Hizbullah has sustained its missile attacks on northern Israel, reaching Tel Aviv and the outskirts of Jerusalem. It is coordinating its strikes with Tehran with the aim of overwhelming Israeli air defences. In its defensive operations, Hizbullah has deployed along the border to repel Israeli incursions near Jabal Al-Balat, Aita Al-Shaab, Markaba, and Khiam.
It divides its defensive effort between attacks on Israeli positions inside Lebanese territory, the number of which has increased from five to 18, all within about 3 km of the border, and strikes on Israeli logistics and supply bases inside Israel.
Israel insists that it will not negotiate before Hizbullah is disarmed and, as always, it has opted to escalate. It has called up approximately 450,000 reservists and transferred the 91st Infantry Division that was previously deployed in Gaza to the border with Lebanon where it will join Divisions 146, 210, and 162.
Together these units consist of armoured, infantry, reconnaissance, and special forces, suggesting that Israel is preparing for an expanded ground offensive in Lebanon. This is consistent with threats by Defence Minister Israel Katz, who has warned that Israel will seize Lebanese territory if the Lebanese government fails to stop Hizbullah attacks.
Nonetheless, the French continue to engage both sides, trying to convince them of the benefits of negotiating and ending the war. Yet, on one side is the Lebanese government, which is offering to negotiate but is not in a position to implement an agreement since Hizbullah would not approve it. And on the other side is Israel, which is inclined to give the lead to military solutions over negotiated ones.
At present, the military solution Israel appears to have in mind entails an extended ground invasion ostensibly to defeat Hizbullah, which has demonstrated how quickly it can redeploy south of the Litani River.
Perhaps the root of the problem is that neither side is convinced of the value of negotiations. Israel has historically violated all previous agreements, and both Tel Aviv and Washington have used negotiations as a lure before escalating.
At the same time, Lebanon’s decision-making does not rest solely with the government, given Hizbullah’s inclination to defy its decisions or await Tehran’s approval. Little help can be expected from Washington, which has shown once again how far its decisions regarding war and peace in the Middle East rest with Tel Aviv.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 19 March, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: