In his first comment on the statement issued by the US Embassy in Beirut, which called on President Joseph Aoun to hold a direct meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri told Asharq Al-Awsat that the statement “speaks for itself, and I have nothing to add.”
He added that his response to the president “came in reply to what he said while receiving economic bodies” (in reference to Aoun’s remarks about full coordination with Berri regarding negotiations). This, he said, explains his apology for not attending the meeting that had been scheduled with President Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam at the presidential palace.
Berri also addressed the extension of the truce for three weeks, brokered by US President Donald Trump, asking: “Where is this truce?” Has Israel stopped leveling towns, demolishing homes, shedding the blood of children, women and the elderly, preventing rescue teams from saving the wounded and transporting them to hospitals, or retrieving those trapped under rubble until they died?
He also pointed to the targeting of medical bodies and paramedics, which led to the killing of dozens of them, questioning whether all these victims were part of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, as Israel claims to justify the destruction of southern towns.
He said the so-called truce has allowed Israel to press ahead with its aggression and commit unprecedented massacres, without US intervention to compel it to halt hostilities and entrench a ceasefire, particularly since Washington was behind securing the truce extension.
This, he added, obliges it to honor its commitment to the Lebanese and the international community. Otherwise, what is the point of negotiations under Israeli fire? And what would be said to the families of those killed in what he described as Israeli treachery in the south?
Aoun and Berri: divergence, not a rupture
In this context, a parliamentary source following presidential relations said the emerging dispute between Aoun and Berri remains within the bounds of differing interpretations of the US State Department statement.
The source told Asharq Al-Awsat that mediators intervened to cool tensions between the two sides, ruling out any rupture given the difficult and delicate circumstances Lebanon is going through, which require collective efforts, starting with the presidents, to compel Israel to cease fire and entrench it before asking Lebanon to enter direct negotiations, even if indirect talks would be preferable, as the US administration is expected to pursue.
The source added that as long as the three presidents agree on the necessity of halting hostilities ahead of any negotiation track with Israel, the recalibration of positions on the sidelines of the cabinet session helped ease tensions between Aoun and Berri, opening the way for renewed momentum in presidential relations. None of the presidents, the source said, has an interest in the absence of consultation, which is essential to reach a roadmap for handling the negotiations matter.
The source noted that there is no alternative to renewed coordination among the three presidents as long as they adhere to national constants and do not compromise them, as a prerequisite for launching negotiations that cannot be held without being paired with a firmly established ceasefire. This, he said, calls on Trump to intervene with Israel to stop it from escalating its aggression.
Berri’s stance on negotiations
The parliamentary source defended Berri’s position, questioning why the US administration has not intervened to compel Israel to implement the ceasefire agreement it sponsored in coordination with France in 2024, which never came into force. Instead, it allowed Israel to continue violating it by expanding its aggression beyond the south to Beirut’s southern suburbs and towns in the Bekaa.
He confirmed that Hezbollah responded to Berri’s position and adhered, to the fullest extent, to the cessation of hostilities, playing, with the party’s authorization, a role in reaching it with the then US mediator Amos Hochstein, under US and French sponsorship. This came, he said, while Israel was given free rein to continue its aggression under the pretext of self-defense through preemptive strikes against what it claims are threats to its northern settlements.
The source said Hezbollah’s commitment to the ceasefire for 15 months, contrasted with Israel’s insistence on violating it, placed it in a difficult position, especially with Washington refraining from pressuring Israel to halt its breaches, leading to an expanded offensive, despite prior commitments to synchronized steps by both sides as a condition for implementing the agreement.
He added that Nawaf Salam’s government, while primarily betting on a diplomatic track to compel Israel to withdraw from the south, faced Israeli defiance of the agreement and continued pressure through fire to force Lebanon to accept its terms.
The three-week truce
The source said the three-week truce remained ink on paper, enabling Israel to turn the south into an open military operations zone, continuing systematic destruction across areas south and north of the Litani River, displacing residents under pressure to evacuate their towns.
He expressed confidence that President Aoun remains committed to his position that securing a ceasefire must come first as a prerequisite for launching direct negotiations between the two countries under US sponsorship, without compromising national constants regardless of pressure.
This position, he added, aligns with his understanding with Berri and Salam, and was reaffirmed in the latest cabinet session when Aoun said negotiations have not yet begun, meaning he rejects any negotiation track before Israel halts its military pressure on Lebanon.
Securing a ceasefire
The source stressed that Aoun will not agree to begin negotiations unconditionally, foremost without a secured ceasefire. From his perspective, US pressure to urgently arrange a meeting with Netanyahu could inflame the domestic atmosphere and raise tensions amid growing disagreements if such pressure is met without guarantees for Lebanon, primarily a ceasefire and the return of displaced people to their villages.
He confirmed his support for Aoun’s preference not to rush into a meeting with Netanyahu, considering the timing premature. Such a meeting, he said, should come as the culmination of an agreement that responds to the national constants upheld by the president, in exchange for ending the state of war between the two countries, with subsequent steps to be addressed later.
He also questioned why the call for Aoun to meet Netanyahu was issued by the US Embassy in Beirut rather than the White House, noting that Aoun raised this matter during his meeting with US Ambassador to Beirut Michel Issa, who had recently returned from Washington, to clarify the reasons behind issuing the statement from the embassy, which he described as unprecedented in the history of relations between the two countries.
