The seventh round of Lebanese-Israeli talks in Rome concluded after three days without agreement on a new pilot zone, while discussions continued over a verification mechanism and other issues. Further rounds are expected as tensions persist on the ground in South Lebanon.
Lebanese lawmakers differed over the point of continuing the dialogue, though most believe the outcome of their outcome cannot be judged based on a single round.
Supporters argued that successive meetings can produce incremental gains and pave the way for more advanced stages of talks despite setbacks and violations on the ground.
Critics said that the lack of tangible results risks turning the effort into “open-ended negotiations” that Israel benefits from.
Laying the groundwork for implementation
Ghassan Hasbani, an MP from the Strong Republic bloc, described the current track as an effort to develop mechanisms aimed at stabilizing southern Lebanon, while acknowledging that conditions have yet to reach a point where renewed war or continued violations can be ruled out.
“The negotiations appear to be preparations for a later, more decisive phase, establishing a mechanism or model for the Lebanese army to take over and deploy in southern Lebanon,” Hasbani told Asharq Al-Awsat.
He added that the broader situation had not reached a final stage that could guarantee that no new round of war would erupt.
Hasbani described the “framework agreement” as a de-escalatory step that could provide a model for army deployment, including the capabilities required and the possible involvement of an independent party trusted by both sides to assist the Lebanese military.
“These are not open-ended negotiations, but a natural progression,” he stressed. “I see the current dialogue as a new or additional avenue for developing mechanisms to maintain stability in southern Lebanon. It is not leading to major, final or decisive agreements, but it is a step forward.”
Criticism
Mohammad Khawaja, an MP from Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s Development and Liberation bloc, took the opposite view, saying that Lebanon had effectively entered a phase of “open-ended negotiations,” with Israel turning dialogue into an end in itself without offering political or military concessions.
“Israel negotiates but offers nothing in return,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.
Citing statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz that Israel would not withdraw from Lebanon, the Golan Heights or Gaza, he argued that Tel Aviv had already decided it would make no concessions.
Khawaja reiterated his bloc’s opposition to direct negotiations and criticized the framework agreement, saying it had shifted the entire problem onto Lebanon while giving Israel what it wanted at Beirut’s expense.
He also maintained that Israel benefits from dragging out the dialogue, pointing to its experience negotiating with Egypt and the Palestinians, where some discussions going on for years.
“I see no benefit in pursuing a course that has produced no results for Lebanon,” he added, linking the diplomatic effort to mounting violence in the south. “Every day we see larger and more violent explosions, alongside strikes, killings and the burning of villages, crops and farmland.”
Incremental progress
MP Mark Daou rejected the characterization of the rounds as “open-ended negotiations,” arguing that each has a defined objective and that progress is being achieved through cumulative steps.
“I do not believe we are facing open-ended negotiations or permanent talks for their own sake. Each round has a clear objective and a specific purpose,” Daou told Asharq Al-Awsat.
“The process is proceeding normally, with each stage addressing different goals. Specific issues are raised, addressed and answered before moving on to the next phase.”
Daou viewed Israeli military escalation ahead of negotiating rounds as an attempt to influence their outcome, suggesting such efforts could intensify as political and electoral deadlines approach in Israel.
International pressure, he added, remains focused on compelling Israel to carry out what has been agreed and translate the results into action on the ground, whether through pilot zones or by limiting strikes and violations.
“The war has not yet ended, and Israel still occupies parts of Lebanese territory,” Daou noted. “At the same time, practical mechanisms are gradually taking shape, allowing for interim gains that can be built upon.”
‘Too early’ to call talks open-ended
Former Lebanese ambassador to Washington Antoine Chedid adopted a diplomatic view, saying it was premature to call the Rome discussions open-ended because their primary purpose is to complete the framework agreement and gradually advance to new stages.
“The aim of this round is to continue implementing the framework agreement, which began with the Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh pilot zone, and move to a second phase,” Chedid told Asharq Al-Awsat.
“It is too early to judge this as an open-ended negotiating framework,” he added. “What is happening now involves carrying out specific stages of the framework agreement, rather than launching negotiations without limits or objectives.”
