Held in Washington on 14-15 May, a new round of Israeli-Lebanese talks worked out a new truce lasting until the end of June. However, many observers are questioning the applicability of the word “truce” as it does not require Israel to commit to a complete ceasefire.
As before, the truce will be punctuated by frequent Israeli military operations against targets it claims belong to Hizbullah. Given such conditions, Hizbullah refuses to fully abide by the truce, vowing to retaliate against every Israeli violation.
Meanwhile, Lebanese casualty figures continue to rise, reaching approximately 2,988 dead and 9,210 wounded since the war began again on 2 March, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health.
Israel has killed around 400 civilians since the truce began on 17 April. It has also destroyed around 10,000 housing units in Lebanon.
Nevertheless, the Lebanese government considers its engagement in US-sponsored direct negotiations with Israel a success. It has secured at least a partial truce, sparing Lebanon from an expansion of Israeli attacks that would probably target Beirut and national infrastructure.
Lebanese officials also argue that it helps Lebanon strengthen its relationship with the US, reinforcing the hope that Washington will sponsor a more comprehensive agreement to prevent future Israeli aggression against it.
The Lebanese and Israeli delegations participating in the third round of the talks were broader. They included political and military figures from both sides, whereas the first two rounds were limited to the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors in Washington.
The Lebanese delegation was led by Simon Karam, who was accompanied by Nada Hamadeh and the Lebanese military attaché in Washington. Israel was represented by its ambassador in Washington as well as the commander of the Israeli army’s strategic brigade. The US ambassadors to Beirut and Tel Aviv and an adviser to the US secretary of state mediated the talks.
At the end of the second day, it was announced that the truce would be extended for 45 days until the end of June. However, given Israel’s near-daily violations of the truce since it went into effect in April, it appears that the extension will change little.
Israel made no firmer commitment to cease its military operations, leading many to wonder whether the extension was merely a cover for Israel to expand its operations in Lebanon, perhaps capitalising on the element of surprise. Still fresh in people’s minds is the Israeli violation of the terms of the US-Iranian truce through the indiscriminate Black Wednesday attacks of 8 April, killing at least 357 people.
The Lebanese are bitterly divided over the value of their government’s direct negotiations with Israel. Even as ceasefires are announced, Israeli attacks remain unabated against multiple targets whose alleged affiliation with Hizbullah is difficult to verify and the Israeli occupation forces continue to issue evacuation warnings in villages north of the Litani River before wreaking extensive destruction.
Such actions have deepened the political cleavages in Lebanon, not only between supporters and opponents of the negotiations, but also between those who fall within the range of Israeli attacks and those who fall outside them.
These divisions weaken Beirut’s negotiating position relative to that of Tel Aviv. Israel’s delegation arrives in Washington with the vast majority of Israeli society united behind the drive for regional dominance. Lebanon’s delegation carries with it sharp social divides and the gulf between legitimate state institutions and Hizbullah.
Hizbullah accuses the Lebanese government of capitulating to Washington and abandoning the large segment of Lebanese society that falls victim to the occupation forces’ brutal and incessant assaults.
Hizbullah MP Ihab Hamadeh described the negotiations as nothing more than “filthy theatre” featuring not two sides but only one, and that side representing the Zionist-US project in Lebanon.
Hizbullah Secretary General Naim Qassem, in a speech last week, reiterated the Lebanese resistance movement’s rejection of the direct negotiations between the current Lebanese government and Israel and all the outcomes resulting from them. On the other hand, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri told Lebanese President Joseph Aoun that if Israel truly committed to a comprehensive truce, he would guarantee that Hizbullah would reciprocate.
Lebanese critics have likened the government’s “treasonous” engagement in the current negotiations to the talks that led to the 17 May 1983 peace agreement between Lebanon and Israel. That agreement collapsed the following year, amid popular opposition to what was widely viewed as an imposed settlement signed during the Israeli occupation after the 1982 invasion and siege of Beirut.
The Lebanese government insists that it has remained committed to five core principles during the negotiations: ending the war; restoring Lebanon’s full territorial sovereignty by securing a complete Israeli withdrawal; returning displaced residents to their southern villages; rebuilding destroyed areas; and securing the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel.
After the third round of talks concluded, Washington announced that an initial round of military negotiations would take place between Lebanese and Israeli military delegations at the Pentagon on 29 May and that the political negotiations would resume on 2-3 June.
The Lebanese delegation released a statement saying that “the extension of the ceasefire and the establishment of a US-facilitated security track provide critical breathing space for our citizens, reinforce state institutions, and advance a political pathway towards lasting stability.”
The beginning of a dual-track process indicates that the talks are advancing and expanding into technical details, although many contentious issues remain unresolved.
Lebanon rejected a US proposal to create a special force within the Lebanese army tasked with confiscating Hizbullah’s weapons due to the dangerous effects this would have on the unity of the army and civil peace in Lebanon. Consequently, the military negotiations will focus on a possible mechanism for ensuring the Lebanese army’s exclusive deployment in the south in implementation of the principle that the state should hold exclusive control over arms following the Israeli withdrawal.
The mechanism might include a third military party tasked with verifying the completion of the deployment, the restriction of arms to the Lebanese army, and the elimination of the Hizbullah threat to northern Israel.
In the week leading up to the negotiations in Washington, Israel carried out a series of targeted assassinations against individuals it considers affiliated with Hizbullah. The victims included Malek Ballout, a senior commander from Hizbullah’s elite Radwan Force, who was killed in a drone strike in Beirut’s Dahiyeh district on 6 May.
Meanwhile, Israeli evacuation orders have begun to target villages north of the Litani River, indicating that Israel is not content with the zone it had previously demarcated with its so-called “yellow line” and is bent on expanding its territorial control whenever the opportunity arises.
On the other hand, Hizbullah has achieved unexpected battlefield successes through the deployment of FPV (First-Person View) attack drones equipped with cameras and relatively powerful explosive payloads. As they are guided by fibre-optic cables, these drones do rely on radio frequencies for navigation and are therefore resistant to electronic warfare jamming systems.
Therefore, they are difficult to detect until moments before they strike, giving them the element of surprise. The Israeli occupation forces have tried to obstruct the attack drones using nets and barbed wire; however, such precautions have largely failed due to the drones’ exceptional manoeuvrability.
These sophisticated weapons have slowed the advance of the Israeli occupation army in Southern Lebanon and forced it to reduce its reliance on special forces and armoured vehicles. Mounted with anti-armour warheads, Hizbullah’s FPVs, costing no more than $400, are capable of crippling Israel’s Merkava tanks, worth millions of dollars. The nearly invisible ultra-thin fibre-optic cables, which can extend for over 15 km, make it extremely difficult to locate their operators.
With its FPVs, which first made their mark as a major battlefield weapon during the war in Ukraine, Hizbullah has been able to inflict multiple casualties on Israeli occupation soldiers. The sight of Israeli helicopters evacuating dead and wounded soldiers from Southern Lebanon has become routine. Video footage from the drones’ cameras, which Hizbullah has posted online and shows Israeli soldiers fleeing an impending strike, has gone viral.
As it continues to explore ways to counter these drones, Israel is considering establishing a factory specifically dedicated to manufacturing its own low-cost, expendable kamikaze drones.
The writer is a senior researcher at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 21 May, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: