In Lebanon, Israel is using occupation as negotiating tool, say analysts | Conflict
Evacuations Underway as Tensions Escalate in Southern Lebanon
Beirut — The Israeli military has issued new evacuation orders in the southern Dahiyeh suburb of Beirut, prompting swift departures from the area amidst ongoing bombings. The evacuation warnings highlight the stark contrast between Israel’s military actions and a recent proposal from France aimed at diplomatic intervention to halt the conflict.
Analysts suggest that this dissonance reflects a new strategic landscape that Israel is creating through its military presence in southern Lebanon, which may enhance its negotiating power in future discussions.
The human toll of the conflict is significant. Since March 2, Israeli operations have resulted in the deaths of approximately 850 individuals, including 107 children and 66 women, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health. The offensive has displaced over one million people within the country, pushing many into overcrowded shelters. The escalation began after Hezbollah targeted Israeli military positions in retaliation for a US-Israeli attack on Iran in late February, which ended the prior ceasefire established in November 2024.
In an effort to facilitate dialogue, French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed hosting negotiations between Lebanon and Israel in Paris. He emphasized the urgency of preventing further chaos in Lebanon and announced the delivery of 60 tons of humanitarian aid and armored personnel carriers to support Lebanese forces.
Despite these diplomatic overtures, analysts argue that the trajectory of discussions appears heavily influenced by Israel’s military strategy rather than French initiatives.
Military Strategy and Geopolitical Implications
Israel’s military strategy aims to reshape the security landscape in southern Lebanon. According to political analysts, Israel seeks to impose new realities through its occupation of various villages, effectively forcing Lebanon into negotiations regarding its sovereignty.
Ziad Majed, a political science professor at the American University of Paris, stated that the unspoken terms of potential negotiations may compel the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah under supervision from the US and France. Through its territorial control, Israel intends to negotiate conditions that could permanently alter its military footprint in the region.
As the situation unfolds, Israel has mobilized six military divisions—approximately 100,000 troops—along its northern border. Military experts cite the southern Lebanese town of Khiam as a critical point for Israel’s planned ground operations.
Retired Lebanese brigadier-general Bahaa Hallal noted that Khiam’s geographical significance could allow Israel to disrupt communications between southern Lebanese villages, establishing a buffer zone.
Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University, observed that Israel’s troop deployment indicates a reluctance to engage in negotiations due to its perceived military advantage.
Domestic Political Divisions
The current crisis is also exposing existing divisions within Lebanese society. Al Jazeera Arabic’s Mazen Ibrahim reported that Lebanese officials are in urgent discussions to form a six-member delegation of diplomats to negotiate a ceasefire, potentially in Cyprus. However, internal discussions have been complicated by parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri’s refusal to include representatives from the Shia community in the delegation while asserting that a ceasefire must occur before political negotiations commence.
The issue of disarming Hezbollah, which has become a point of contention for both Israel and Western nations, poses the risk of escalating domestic tensions.
Some analysts argue that the Lebanese state should assert control over Hezbollah’s weapons through force if necessary. Political analyst Toni Boulos emphasized the need for the state to act decisively. In contrast, others, such as political researcher Ali Matar, have labeled this approach as reckless, warning that such actions could fracture the national army, which includes many Shia soldiers, and highlighting the state’s previous failures to protect its citizens.
Stalemate in Negotiations
Neither Israel nor Hezbollah appears willing to make immediate concessions at this time. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has rejected the possibility of direct talks, insisting that the Lebanese government must first take tangible steps to limit Hezbollah’s military capabilities.
Conversely, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem has asserted that diplomatic efforts have been ineffective in curbing violence, cautioning the Lebanese government against making unreciprocated concessions while insisting that outcomes will be determined on the battlefield.
The current situation draws comparisons to Lebanon’s historical context, notably the 1983 Israeli invasion of Beirut, which led to negotiations under military occupation. Those discussions culminated in the May 17 Agreement, a treaty ultimately derailed by internal divisions within Lebanon.
More than 40 years later, a new generation of Lebanese families finds themselves in precarious living conditions, seeking shelter amid ongoing conflict. While diplomatic discussions are underway, the realities on the ground leave many in southern Lebanon feeling that their homes have become pawns in a larger geopolitical game.
