Political analyst Adnan Melki reviewed the US-sponsored talks between Lebanon and Israel. Six months after they began, he looked at the results on the ground. He also described the major political challenges facing the Lebanese state.
Why Netanyahu came to the table
Melki said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not want direct talks at first. US diplomatic efforts later convinced him the process could bring moral and political gains.
According to Melki, the talks let Netanyahu present a different image to the world. He faces accusations of war crimes in Gaza and of aggression against Lebanon. Yet the talks show the Lebanese state negotiating directly with him. Tel Aviv has already won that gain. Other tracks run in parallel, such as US-Iran talks, where Lebanon is a key item.
Results so far: a near-total stalemate
Melki said the cycle of escalation and de-escalation since April has led to near-total paralysis. The talks have reached a dead end. The “pilot zones” idea achieved little, since clear criteria and mechanisms are missing. The talks have produced no concrete results, such as a withdrawal or progress on the ground.
Meanwhile, the US administration pushed for sessions regardless of the Israeli elections. This led to side meetings between the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors in Washington. There is also talk of a planned direct military meeting in Naqoura.
US and Israeli officials reportedly say Lebanon’s offer is not enough and does not meet Israeli demands. Inside Lebanon, opponents of direct talks are getting louder. They want a return to indirect negotiations only.
A possible way out
Melki proposed a roadmap. If the current path proves fruitless, Lebanon could “freeze” direct meetings and return to indirect talks.
He also called for all Lebanese political forces to join a serious, responsible discussion. Its goal would be a shared view on how to use Lebanon’s assets, including the weapons card. They would need a clear, united negotiating strategy.
He ended with a question: do Lebanon’s leaders have the courage and ability to take this step in the national interest?
