Political upheaval in Israel has cast fresh uncertainty over negotiations with Lebanon, raising questions about whether Prime Minister-designate Gadi Eisenkot will change Israel's approach or commit to the security conditions set by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Lebanon is waiting for Israel's next government to take shape before setting a date to resume talks. But political assessments suggest a change in leadership is unlikely to soften Israel's stance and could see Eisenkot take an even tougher line.
The uncertainty highlights a divide between diplomatic calculations over when talks might resume and political assessments of where they are headed.
The last round of negotiations in Tampa, Florida, ended without a date for further talks, while disputes persist over implementing the trilateral framework agreement, Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory and Hezbollah's disarmament.
Lebanon awaits Israeli govt
A Lebanese ministerial source told Asharq Al-Awsat that talks with Israel remain on hold pending clarity over the country's next government, despite continued contacts with Washington.
"The Americans were the ones who called for negotiations," the source said, referring to the last meeting in Tampa.
The source said all sides recognized that elections in Israel and the United States could divert attention from the talks or shift political priorities. Lebanon is now watching whether Eisenkot can form a government, with his position on negotiations still unclear.
If Eisenkot fails to form a coalition, Lebanon could find itself negotiating again with Netanyahu, whose government would remain in a caretaker capacity, adding further political complications.
Asked about contacts with Washington, the source said: "There is always communication, but there has been no answer on this issue."
The uncertainty follows Israeli President Isaac Herzog's decision on Nov. 8 to task Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, with forming a government after he secured recommendations from 67 Knesset members, against 46 for Netanyahu.
Despite securing the most endorsements, Eisenkot faces divisions among his backers over the makeup of a governing coalition, particularly the participation of Arab parties and potential arrangements with religious parties.
He has 28 days to form a government, with a possible 14-day extension. Netanyahu and his cabinet retain their powers until a transfer of authority.
Talks will continue
Former Lebanese lawmaker Fares Souaid offered a different assessment, saying Israel's change in leadership would neither alter its strategic course nor halt negotiations with Lebanon.
He said the talks would continue and inevitably lead to new arrangements between the two countries, though not necessarily a peace agreement.
Souaid told Asharq Al-Awsat that the regional "earthquake" had shifted Israel from watching and waiting to seeking "a long-term insurance policy from neighboring countries."
"This will not change from one government to another or from one prime minister to another," he said.
But peace would require a major Arab initiative, he added
Souaid linked the future of Lebanese-Israeli relations to broader regional shifts, saying discussions over a new regional order could pave the way for comprehensive settlements benefiting countries that have paid a heavy price for decades of Arab-Israeli conflict.
"Everyone is talking about a new Middle East," he said.
Souaid said confrontations stretching from the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb to the Ali al-Taher ridge in southern Lebanon were part of a single conflict unlikely to end through separate or phased settlements.
"This is one battle," he said, predicting it would end not in stages but through a broad regional conference in which all sides would find their place in the new regional order.
Souaid also dismissed the prospect of a fundamental shift in Israel's negotiating approach under Eisenkot, saying his military background could make him at least as uncompromising as Netanyahu.
"He is no less hard-line than Netanyahu," Souaid said.
Eisenkot could adopt an even tougher negotiating stance, driven by security and military considerations, as well as domestic political pressures, he added.
