How did the ceasefire in Lebanon happen, and what's next in terms of direct negotiations with Israel?

Lebanon on Friday, 17 April, entered a 10-day ceasefire while Israel remains in positions it has occupied in the south and declares it will take all necessary measures for "self-defence" at any time.

A parallel diplomatic track is beginning to pave the way for direct negotiations facilitated by the United States, amid anticipation over whether Lebanese President Joseph Aoun will accept an invitation from his US counterpart, Donald Trump, to the White House to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly after refusing to hold a call with him.

While cautious calm prevails on the military front, continued Israeli operations have been recorded in the villages it occupies, alongside warnings to residents not to move to areas south of the Litani River.

Attention is now turning to the political arena, especially amid significant pressure on Lebanon to assert sovereignty over its territory, extend full state authority, and curb the activities of non-state armed groups.

In the hours leading up to the announcement of the ceasefire agreement, a series of political developments and events paved the way for the track. Each party is now seeking to invest in this "achievement" and claim credit for it. 

Among the most notable was the call referenced by Trump between Aoun and Netanyahu, which sparked widespread confusion and objections in Lebanon, prompting the Lebanese president to refuse to participate.

This came amid warnings that the call represented an Israeli attempt to impose normalisation and inflame the Lebanese domestic scene, much of which opposes direct contact. Communication was thus limited to Aoun and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, followed by a call between Aoun and Trump.

This also coincided with a call between Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and his Lebanese counterpart Nabih Berri.

Berri had also dispatched an aide to Saudi Arabia, who played an influential role in the solution, as reflected in Aoun's statement of thanks to the kingdom on Thursday, 16 April.

This also came alongside progress in Iran-US talks mediated by Pakistan, with Iranian, European and Arab insistence that Lebanon be included in the ceasefire agreement.

A meeting held in Washington on Tuesday, 13 April, was also an exceptional development, bringing Lebanon and Israel to the same table for the first time in more than three decades.

During the meeting, Lebanon reiterated its demand for a ceasefire as a fundamental step toward launching direct negotiations. Still, no agreement emerged, and there was consensus to hold a subsequent meeting.

Lebanon maintains it has succeeded in separating its track from Iran's and will now focus its efforts on the negotiations with Israel, in connection with the initiative launched by Aoun on 9 March, according to official Lebanese sources who spoke to The New Arab.

The sources stressed that "no one wants a return to the previous situation, whether war or the period following the entry into force of the ceasefire agreement on 27 November 2024."

The sources said what is required is a "complete halt to Israeli attacks, Israel's withdrawal from the positions it occupies, the release of Lebanese detainees, and the start of reconstruction."

"Lebanon will continue its steps to restrict arms to the state and extend full authority across its territory, describing this as a fundamental track with serious work underway," the sources added. "Truce is very important and was a key Lebanese demand, describing it as an opportunity that must be seized."

The sources further noted that "work is now intensive to prepare Lebanon's negotiating delegation and the file that will express the official Lebanese position at the negotiating table".

This position is "based primarily on the points outlined by Aoun in his initiative, foremost among them halting Israeli violations, ensuring control by the armed forces over areas of tension, disarming Hezbollah, seizing its stockpiles and depots, and providing the necessary logistical support to the armed forces."

The sources expressed "hope that the international conference to support the military and security institutions, which was suspended due to the war in Lebanon and the region, will be convened".

For his part, a parliamentary source in Hezbollah told The New Arab that the group "will not carry out any military operation in commitment to the ceasefire".

"Any attack from the Israeli side will be met in self-defence," the source said, stressing that "what is required is not only a ceasefire but also a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, the release of detainees, and the start of reconstruction.” 

The source noted that Hezbollah "will give diplomacy a new opportunity in this regard" but also "maintains its position rejecting direct negotiations with Israel", arguing that "the Lebanese state should stop making concessions to the enemy."

The source added that any discussion regarding weapons should remain an internal Lebanese matter.

In an assessment of these developments, former interior minister Ziad Baroud told The New Arab that a combination of factors led to the ceasefire.

These include the US willingness for Lebanon to move toward negotiations, which would not have been possible under fire and amid repeated attacks, prompting US pressure on Israel in that direction.

He added that the US-Iran file also played a role, noting that despite talk of separating the tracks, a complete separation does not exist, and the linkage is clear.

Accordingly, he said the ceasefire between Israel and Iran was expected to extend to the Lebanese arena.

Baroud stressed that "the ceasefire is limited to 10 days and is not final, which is a point that must be noted."

"If no development occurs on the US-Iran track, on one hand, and the official Lebanese internal track, on the other, it will remain fragile, and the situation will return to the status quo that existed before the truce," he said. "The focus is, therefore, on two tracks: the US-Iran track, which directly or indirectly impacts Lebanon, and the official Lebanese track, and on whether constructive steps will be taken to stabilise the ceasefire or extend the 10 days."

Baroud also noted that what is taking place now constitutes preliminary talks rather than negotiations, which require a minimum level of internal understanding and consensus.

He argued that the role of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri will likely emerge, as he had refused to move under fire, and this period may enable him to continue his efforts in coordination with Aoun.

Baroud said the ceasefire is part of a broader process, not an end in itself, but aims to provide a "minimum level of relative calm" to enable the Lebanese state to move further and negotiating under fire would have faced significant criticism and risked collapse.

He said preliminary talks will determine the objective of negotiations, whether peace, cessation of hostilities, or a truce, and will define the agenda on which a decision for direct negotiations will be based. The next phase, he suggested, will be one of internal Lebanese dialogue to reinforce the negotiation track.

Baroud also said the current agreement is of lower value than the 2024 agreement in form, as it is limited to a temporary ceasefire.

He added that, in substance, the 2024 agreement did not include a second phase, whereas there is now a clear post-ceasefire phase, including the continuation of preliminary talks that may lead to direct negotiations.

Meanwhile, Mohanad Hage Ali, a researcher at the Malcolm Kerr Carnegie Middle East Centre, told The New Arab that the Islamabad talks and the extension of the ceasefire played a major role in the agreement reached regarding Lebanon.

He said there is an Iranian insistence on including Lebanon in the agreement on arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz, in contrast to Israeli insistence on keeping the tracks separate.

Accordingly, he added that the Washington talks held on Tuesday, 13 April, along with the calls conducted on the Lebanese and US lines, provided an outcome that allows Israel, in form, to present a separation between the tracks while securing the ceasefire required for the Islamabad talks. 

He said this effectively offers a face-saving arrangement for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, at least formally, a separation for the Lebanese government from the Islamabad track.

"Israel is now considering what it sees as its most important operation, which is the destruction of border villages in southern Lebanon," Hage Ali said.

"The 10-day ceasefire allows it to complete this task to establish a depopulated buffer zone, which will be its position in any negotiations with Lebanon," he said. "Israel remains in its positions, and the residents of villages south of the Litani are still prevented from returning."

Article translated from Arabic by Afrah Almatwari. To read the original, click here.