Shafaq News/ Lebanon’s troubledrelationship with Israel, shaped by decades of wars and conflicts—from the 1978Litani Operation to the 1982 invasion and the rise of Hezbollah—has long beendefined by deep animosity.
Hezbollah’s resistance played apivotal role in Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. However, the war in2023 dramatically altered the regional landscape.
In a historic move, Hezbollahlaunched a massive missile barrage in support of Gaza, targeting major Israelicities and military sites, prompting a brutal Israeli response. The human costwas devastating, and Lebanon’s economy was left in tatters.
For the first time, Israel,emboldened by its military superiority, openly pursued normalization withLebanon, signaling a profound shift in the region’s dynamics and theonce-unthinkable possibility of direct engagement between the two nations.
A Pivotal Shift
Lebanon, caught in the wake of thishistoric conflict, now faces an entirely new reality.
Israel has effectively emerged asthe region’s uncontested military enforcer, unleashing its might acrossLebanon, Syria, and Palestine with ease. Its sweeping incursions into Syria,accelerated by the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, andthe continued control over five key strategic points in southern Lebanon, havecemented its dominance, marking a dangerous turning point in Lebanesesovereignty.
The war shattered the carefullymaintained balance of deterrence. Hezbollah, long seen as Lebanon’s main lineof defense against Israeli aggression, suffered crippling losses. Its seniorleadership, including Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, was decimated intargeted strikes, and the group’s critical communications infrastructure wasobliterated, leaving its mid-level operatives scattered and disorganized.
Despite a heroic resistance thatstalled Israel’s ground advances, the strategic shift was undeniable.Hezbollah’s power has been irrevocably weakened, and Lebanon, once a bulwarkagainst Israeli aggression, now finds itself exposed and vulnerable.
Hezbollah’s intervention under thebanner of "support for Gaza" is widely viewed as its most costlymiscalculation. In the eyes of many, the move has undermined its deterrentpower. Israel’s swift and devastating retaliation prompted a dramatic shift inboth political and military calculations within Lebanon.
While Hezbollah’s leadershipcontinues to preach resistance as the only viable path, cracks in itsonce-impenetrable defenses are evident. The fall of Al-Assad’s regime hasfurther compounded Hezbollah’s troubles, cutting off critical supply routes andleaving the group exposed to new challenges both internally and externally.
As Lebanon grapples with theseshifting dynamics, long-simmering internal divisions have intensified, makingHezbollah’s position more precarious than ever.
A Nation Divided
The prospect of normalization withIsrael has only deepened Lebanon’s political divide. Hezbollah, joined byallies like the Amal Movement and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), remainsfirmly opposed, with Hassan Nasrallah previously declaring, “Lebanon will neverbow to Israeli dictates, nor will it abandon its resistance.”
He pointed to Israel’s continuedoccupation of Lebanese territory, airspace violations, and aggression inPalestine as key reasons for this unwavering stance. With at least 65 seats outof 128 in Lebanon’s 128-member parliament, Hezbollah and its alliances stand asa powerful force against any move toward normalization.
On the other side, Western-alignedparties such as the Lebanese Forces (LF) and Kataeb Party have begun to adopt amore pragmatic view. LF leader Samir Geagea has acknowledged Lebanon’s harsheconomic realities, suggesting, “Economic realities may one day force Lebanonto consider all options, but this does not mean sacrificing our principles.”
With inflation soaring past 250% in2023 and the national debt exceeding $100 billion, some politicians arecautiously considering new approaches. Yet, even among these factions, the ideaof direct engagement with Israel remains highly sensitive and deeply divisive.
Despite the tension, Lebanon has yetto make an official move toward normalization, though some voices are callingfor change. Independent Lawmakers like Paula Yaacoubian have publicly arguedthat “Normalization with Israel should not be a taboo,” signaling that thedebate is far from over.
Diplomacy under Fire
Lebanon remains caught betweeninternal divisions, relentless Israeli military pressure, and internationalbacking for Israel. While Hezbollah’s military operations are now halted,Lebanon’s diplomatic efforts have yielded little, leaving the country in aprecarious position.
Repeated complaints to the UnitedNations about Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty have gone unanswered,with little concrete action to follow. Lebanon’s diplomatic struggle withIsrael is a history of unfulfilled promises. UN Security Council Resolution425, passed in 1978 after Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon, demanded Israel’swithdrawal, but it was only after years of resistance that Israel finallypulled out in 2000. Similarly, UN Resolution 1701, which led to a ceasefireafter the 2006 conflict, failed to prevent ongoing Israeli violations.
Despite these challenges, Lebanoncontinues to pursue diplomatic channels, as military confrontation is not aviable option against Israel’s overwhelming military dominance, backed byunwavering US and Western support.
When 'Support' Means Pressure
Washington has intensified itsefforts to push Lebanon toward normalization with Israel, viewing it as a keystrategic objective. The pressure escalated following the Abraham Accords,which saw several Arab nations establish ties with Israel. Now, Lebanon is inthe spotlight.
Deputy US Special Envoy to theMiddle East Morgan Ortagus recently visited Beirut, reportedly delivering astark warning to Lebanese officials; failure to engage could provoke expandedIsraeli military operations. A Lebanese official, speaking anonymously,revealed, “The Americans made it clear that continued instability along theborder could justify stronger Israeli military action.”
Beyond security concerns, Washingtonis also leveraging Lebanon’s economic crisis. US officials have reportedlysignaled that substantial international assistance—including support forLebanon’s collapsing infrastructure and financial sector—would be moreforthcoming if Beirut reconsidered its stance on Israel.
A senior American diplomat pointedlyremarked, “Lebanon cannot expect unlimited international support whilerejecting the political realities of the region.”
Despite mounting pressure, Lebaneseauthorities remain firm. Foreign Minister Youssef Raji dismissed the notion ofnormalization as “inaccurate,” asserting, “Normalization is not on the table,and direct political negotiations with Israel are completely rejected.” Lebanoncontinues to adhere to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions peaceon Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories and the establishment of aPalestinian state.
Meanwhile, Washington continues toapply military leverage to shape Lebanon’s trajectory. Since 2006, it hasfunneled over $2.5 billion into the Lebanese Armed Forces, ostensibly tostrengthen state institutions and curb Hezbollah’s influence. At the same time,American sanctions have targeted Hezbollah-linked banks and businesses,freezing more than $1 billion in assets.
A senior US official underscored thebroader objective, “Our goal is to strengthen Lebanon’s institutions whileensuring that terrorist organizations like Hezbollah do not dictate itsfuture.”
One of the most contentious issuesremains the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, whichmandates the Lebanese army’s deployment north of the Litani River and thedisarmament of all armed groups.
Washington argues that Lebanon hasfailed to fully enforce the resolution, while Hezbollah insists its provisionsapply only south of the Litani.
Rejecting foreign pressure,Hezbollah’s newly appointed Secretory, Naim Qassem, asserted, “Resolution 1701does not give Israel or the US the right to dictate Lebanon’s securitypolicies. We will not disarm under foreign pressure.”
The Unbridgeable Gap
The road to normalization withIsrael is fraught with deep-rooted obstacles; territorial disputes, internaldivisions, Hezbollah’s influence, and rigid legal barriers.
At the heart of the conflict liesthe Shebaa Farms, a 25-square-kilometer area captured by Israel in 1967.Lebanon continues to claim it, and Hezbollah uses this dispute to justifymaintaining its armed presence along the border.
Equally contentious is Lebanon’sPalestinian refugee population of 400,000. Many fear normalization could leadto their permanent settlement, threatening Lebanon’s sectarian balance.
Hezbollah’s influence adds yetanother layer of complexity. As a powerful political and military force, itsrefusal to disarm ensures that any effort toward diplomatic engagement withIsrael faces fierce opposition. Hezbollah’s sway over Lebanon’s foreign policycreates an impenetrable barrier for those advocating for peace with Israel.
The country’s legal framework alsoposes a significant hurdle. The 1955 Boycott Law criminalizes any form ofengagement with Israel, further solidifying the barriers to normalization.
A 2024 survey by the Beirut Centerfor Strategic Studies found that 85% of Lebanese citizens oppose normalization,with the fiercest opposition coming from the Shia community (94%), and thelowest among Christians (62%). As legal expert Karim Basha put it, “Undercurrent legislation, even indirect dealings with Israel could result in severepenalties.”