by Xinhua writers Wang Zhuolun, Pang Xinyi
JERUSALEM, April 14 (Xinhua) -- Israeli and Lebanese representatives are holding direct talks in Washington on Tuesday, following more than a month of deadly fighting between the two neighbors and just one week after a U.S.-Israel-Iran ceasefire.
Although both Lebanon and Israel have expressed a willingness to pursue peace through negotiations, analysts caution that three key questions could ultimately determine the outcome of the Israel-Lebanon negotiations.
QUESTION 1: IS ISRAEL REALLY SEEKING A CEASEFIRE?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the talks aim to address the disarmament of Hezbollah and the establishment of "peaceful relations" between Israel and Lebanon, following "repeated requests" from Lebanese -- Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam had reportedly sought the "demilitarization of Beirut."
Israel and Lebanon have no formal diplomatic relations, and Hezbollah has long been viewed by Israel as a "proxy" of Iran. Since the Gaza conflict broke out in October 2023, Hezbollah has launched intermittent attacks on northern Israel in support of Hamas, prompting Israeli airstrikes and artillery responses in southern Lebanon and the capital city of Beirut.
Although a ceasefire was reached in November 2024, Israel has continued strikes, claiming Hezbollah violations. Following U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, hostilities along the Israel-Lebanon front intensified further.
Analysts see the current diplomatic move as parallel to, not a replacement for, military operations.
Former head of Israeli military intelligence Amos Yadlin noted that the U.S.-Iran ceasefire has not fundamentally changed Israel's security calculus, as Iran's nuclear program and "regional proxy" networks remain unresolved for Israel.
An article published by The Jerusalem Post also suggested Israel's willingness to engage in talks reflects tactical considerations under international and domestic pressure, not a genuine intention to halt military operations.
QUESTION 2: CAN THE LEBANESE GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE HEZBOLLAH'S DECISIONS?
The negotiating party with Israel is the Lebanese government, not Hezbollah. While Beirut has sought to curb Hezbollah's influence and pursue diplomatic engagement with Israel, Israel's strikes have weakened support for the Lebanese government's stance among parts of the Shiite population.
Maha Yahya, director of the Beirut-based Malcolm H. Ker Carnegie Middle East Center, wrote in Foreign Affairs that Israeli strikes have reinforced Hezbollah's narrative of "armed resistance," which the group said is necessary to defend Lebanon.
Michael Young, a political analyst at the same center, warned that any attempt to forcibly disarm Hezbollah could backfire -- the Lebanese government remains too weak.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz highlighted a structural dilemma of "chicken-and-egg": Israel demands disarmament of Hezbollah before any agreement, while Lebanon argues that progress in negotiations is needed before it can address the issue domestically.
Moreover, Hezbollah's stance of refusing to disarm and continuing to fight is closely tied to public support, particularly in southern Lebanon, where it is still seen by some as a force of resistance as long as Israeli troops remain on Lebanese soil.
QUESTION 3: CAN THE U.S. RESTRAIN ISRAEL?
Analysts expect that the Washington negotiations will focus more on technical issues, such as border security and limited ceasefire arrangements, rather than on addressing the root causes of the conflict.
Yadlin said that the talks were largely initiated under U.S. pressure, not entirely driven by the warring parties. While Washington supports weakening Hezbollah, it favors a gradual approach tied to Lebanon's internal political process. Yet Israel has made Hezbollah's disarmament a core demand.
Moreover, Washington is eager to prevent the Lebanon front from being subsumed into broader negotiations with Iran, particularly amid renewed tensions over the Strait of Hormuz.
Some experts note that while U.S. President Donald Trump seeks a swift exit from the conflict with Iran, the Israeli government aims to continue fighting to neutralize what it perceives as an existential threat. This highlights that U.S. and Israeli interests are not fully aligned.
Therefore, despite tactical differences, how far the United States can persuade Israel to accept its agenda will directly determine the outcome of the Israel-Lebanon talks. ■
