In a quiet revelation, a Lebanese banker, who shares a longstanding friendship with U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein dating back to their time at a New York bank in the 1990s, disclosed insights from Hochstein’s recent visit to Lebanon. The banker notes an air of optimism surrounding the potential finalization of a cease-fire agreement. During a meeting with Speaker Nabih Berri, Berri, without hesitation, informed Hochstein that Hezbollah had agreed to a withdrawal plan beyond the Litani River. This was a remarkable turnaround, considering their previous staunch rejection. At that time, Speaker Berri had reiterated Hassan Nasrallah’s assertion that relocating the river to the border seemed more feasible than Hezbollah’s withdrawal. Hochstein confided in his Lebanese contact that had this proposal been accepted a year earlier, much of the present devastation and loss of life could have been avoided. In their latest encounter, Speaker Berri assured Hochstein that Hezbollah was willing to decouple the conflict in Lebanon from that in Gaza and would adhere to a cease-fire, provided that Israel withdrew beyond the Blue Line and stopped bombing urban areas. Hochstein responded, noting his impending visit to Israel and highlighting the robust mandate he held from the U.S. administration, both current and incoming, to pressurize Netanyahu and enforce a cease-fire. The departure of the two men was warm, contrasting sharply with their previous meeting, which ended without so much as a handshake. In Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Hochstein with a sarcastic jab, remarking in front of the media, “Sorry to interrupt your pleasant stay in Beirut.” Unfazed, the American envoy entered into what became a tense meeting. The Israelis were confronted with a stark message: the United States would not veto any UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel should it fail to cease hostilities. President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump had reportedly agreed upon this stance during their meeting at the White House. In frustration, Netanyahu slammed his hand on the table, protesting that this shift was a profound betrayal and a strategic blunder that could enable Hezbollah to regain strength and perpetuate Iranian influence. Leaving the meeting noticeably displeased, Hochstein remarked to reporters, “There is progress in the cease-fire negotiations.” Netanyahu convened an emergency cabinet session, briefing members on his discussions with Hochstein. He presented the proposed temporary truce as the most strategic move for Israel, highlighting significant achievements from the Lebanese conflict, including the depletion of Hezbollah’s resources and the permanent detachment of Lebanon from Gaza. Sources close to Netanyahu suggest his acceptance of the truce intends to corner Hezbollah further, while the agreement grants Israel military intervention rights in Lebanon under international law. As the region embarks on the 60-day trial period for the cease-fire, one certainty remains: the border with southern Lebanon is, for the first time since the 1960s, devoid of direct military confrontation with Israel. Some speculate this stipulation might extend throughout Lebanon, permitting Israeli strikes against any treaty violations. The triumphant claims by Hezbollah’s new secretary-general come despite significant setbacks, sparking skepticism about the true nature of victory. Despite Hezbollah’s declarations of triumph, there’s no going back to pretense. In his “Victory Message,” Naim Qassem asserted that Hezbollah would operate under the Taif Agreement’s framework. This agreement, crucial in ending Lebanon’s civil war in the early 1990s, envisioned disarming all militias. Nonetheless, Hezbollah retained its arms under the guise of resistance, bolstered by Syrian and Iranian support. The path forward inevitably involves the critical disarmament of Hezbollah for full compliance with Security Council resolutions. Resolution 1701 presents a viable path for Lebanon and Hezbollah, safeguarding the party’s interests while ensuring Lebanon’s complex political fabric remains intact. Lebanon and Hezbollah must adeptly steer through profound shifts with lasting regional implications. Any move towards Hezbollah’s disarmament will undeniably alter regional dynamics, impacting the United States, Israel, and Iran, each confronting new challenges or opportunities. For Iran, the loss of a steadfast ally in Hezbollah is unimaginable, given its extensive backing. In contrast, the United States and Israel might see such a development as a springboard for reinvigorating the Abraham Accords. Beyond populist rhetoric, one truth stands clear: the geopolitical landscape has undeniably shifted post-conflict, as the axis of resistance grapples with the substantial repercussions following Hezbollah’s substantial setbacks in Lebanon. —Huda al-Husseini (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
