Hezbollah has stepped up its campaign against Lebanon’s authorities, objecting to their decision to pursue direct negotiations with Israel and insisting the government reverse course, while warning it could seek to bring down the process by force.
The group argues that such talks require a broad national consensus, which it says is lacking, and has warned that the fate of any negotiations and resulting agreement would mirror that of the May 17, 1983 accord.
That agreement, reached 43 years ago, was a peace treaty between Lebanon and Israel that included security arrangements aimed at ending the state of war, securing an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and regulating their shared border.
It followed Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, when Israeli forces reached Beirut and occupied large parts of the country. The deal came after Palestinian factions withdrew from Lebanon and a new president, Amin Gemayel, was elected and led the negotiations.
However, the US-brokered accord was abandoned on March 5, 1984 after broad domestic opposition from Lebanese factions, particularly nationalist, leftist and Islamist groups, as well as outright Syrian rejection at a time when Syrian military presence in Lebanon was influential.
Different circumstances
Despite Hezbollah’s fierce opposition to direct negotiations, some observers say current conditions differ from those in 1983.
MP Salim Sayegh of the Kataeb Party said that in 1983 “the Lebanese government, presidency and parliament were facing Syria, the Warsaw Pact, Israeli ill intent and weak US commitment all at once.”
“Today, regional dynamics have changed. Hezbollah no longer has strategic depth, and its capabilities are very limited,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat, warning that “any misstep in the street would turn the entire Lebanese public against it.”
Sayegh added that the Lebanese government now holds a firm position and “will act decisively,” dismissing doubts about the army’s capabilities.
“The army knows the terrain, both land and people. What it lacked was a clearly defined battle. No army can throw itself into an open-ended conflict. But if Hezbollah chooses chaos and strife, it will face a cohesive army and a united people,” he said.
Anger and threats
Anger spread among supporters of the Shiite duo, Amal and Hezbollah, after images circulated of a meeting last Tuesday in Washington between the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors.
Commentators and activists aligned with the two groups warned that the talks could meet the same fate as the May 17 agreement.
Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah said: “A large segment rejects the authorities’ path, and it was this segment, along with national forces, that brought down the May 17 accord, and it will not allow the experience to be repeated.”
“This is not limited to the Shiite community, which is a core component of the Lebanese people and rejects direct negotiations. No one can bypass its role,” he added.
Sayegh said Hezbollah also lacks the ability to create alternatives, as in the past, when Syrian influence in Lebanon allowed disruptions to serve Damascus’ interests.
“At the time, Israel was also mired in internal contradictions that led it to prefer managing the Lebanese file through security arrangements with Syria, as seen in the red lines agreement that covered Syria’s entry into Lebanon in 1976,” he said.
“Today, chaos offers zero benefit after the separation of the Lebanese and Iranian tracks. Israel will not bargain over Lebanon, having concluded that strengthening the state in Beirut secures what it wants in the south while respecting Lebanese sovereignty,” he added.
Civil war risks
While agreeing that conditions differ from 1983, political science professor Hilal Khashan of the American University of Beirut expressed a more pessimistic outlook.
“The key Syrian role in bringing down the agreement back then is absent today, and there is no longer a Syrian-Israeli struggle over Lebanon,” he said.
Khashan said Israel now seeks a peace agreement that would provide cover and legitimacy to continue fighting Hezbollah, adding that “it is clear no one can stop it, and its decision to end the group’s military presence is final.”
He warned the escalation could push Lebanon toward civil war, with a possibility of Syrian intervention from the north, noting that Hezbollah fighters are spread across the country.
“We also fear this could lead to the army splitting and ultimately the division of the country,” he said.
Khashan added that Hezbollah’s potential move to ignite internal tensions is tied to developments in the Lebanon-Israel talks and their possible outcomes, even as Israel itself does not appear to be placing much hope in the negotiations.
