Donald Trump has not even returned to the White House yet and diplomatic negotiations have already begun. And first of all in the Middle East, where the bloody war that Israel is waging in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon still seems far from coming to an end.
According to the Washington Postthe future American president would already be in full negotiations with his Israeli ally to reach a peace agreement upon his return to the Oval Office next January. Ron Dermer, Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs, went to Donald Trump’s Florida residence last Sunday, at Mar-a-Lago, to discuss the situation in Lebanon. And this, even before his official trip to the White House to meet the Biden administration. “There is an arrangement that Israel would like to give a gift to Donald Trump […] and that in January, there will be an agreement on Lebanon”, assures an Israeli official to the American newspaper on condition of anonymity. Information which has neither been denied nor confirmed by the spokesperson for Ron Dermer, nor by the Trump and Netanyahu administrations.
Gain the good graces of the United States
While it is common knowledge that relations between Benjamin Netanyahu and Joe Biden had become execrable in recent months, these discussions demonstrate the very premature switch of interlocutor to the Israeli side. “Netanyahu has no loyalty to Biden and will focus entirely on obtaining favors from Trump,” assured the Washington Post Frank Lowenstein, former special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations under President Barack Obama. Having himself ensured the transition to the first administration of the Republican president in 2016, he assures: “Trump will not hesitate to act as if he were already president when he sees an opportunity.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, for his part, boasted in a video posted this Sunday on his social networks that he had spoken with the future American president three times in recent days and that the two men saw “opportunities major challenges ahead for Israel, in particular to advance peace. Offering Donald Trump the credit for a ceasefire in Lebanon would thus be an opportunity for the Israeli Prime Minister to curry favor with the American administration for years to come.
The return of a demilitarized zone
But to achieve this, we still need to reach an agreement that can suit all stakeholders, whether Israel and Lebanon, but also Hezbollah. Concretely, the Hebrew State would notably demand the withdrawal of fighters from the Shiite group beyond the Litani River, in the south of Lebanon. This one, located 6 kilometers from the Israeli border, has been at the heart of diplomatic tensions and military conflicts between the Jewish state and the Shiite organization for decades. To put an end to the Second Lebanon War, in 2006, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1701, imposing the withdrawal of “all armed personnel, goods and other weapons as those of the Lebanese authorities and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)” between the Litani River and the Israeli-Lebanese border. It is in this zone that UNIFIL is located, in which nearly 700 French soldiers participate.
But the development of this form of buffer zone between Israel and Hezbollah fizzled. The Islamist group has maintained its military activities in southern Lebanon to regularly strike the Jewish state. For its part, Israel flew daily over Lebanese airspace with its military aircraft even before the start of the war, and did not hesitate to launch a ground invasion in southern Lebanon in early October, even going so far as to hit targets. UN infrastructure.
However, still according to Washington Posta source close to Hezbollah said the group would be ready to withdraw its fighters north of the Litani River as part of a temporary ceasefire. For its part, Israel, through a military official, affirmed that it would accept that the Lebanese army take control of this border area for an initial period of 60 days, under the supervision of the United States and of Great Britain.
Points that always block
But if these terms of the agreement could be the subject of a consensus between Hezbollah and Israel – without any guarantee of their respect over time – other elements could well continue to block the negotiations. And in particular a point which so far seems non-negotiable on the Israeli side: the guarantee of being able to operate on the other side of the Lebanese border in the event of attacks. A condition so far categorically refused by the Lebanese authorities. “Is there a sane person who believes that we will accept a settlement or a solution that serves the interests of Israel at the expense of the interests and sovereignty of Lebanon?” declared this Tuesday Nabih Berri, Shiite president of the Lebanese Parliament and ally of Hezbollah, himself having served as an intermediary in the negotiations between the pro-Iranian group and Israel.
A source close to Hezbollah also assured Post that the group’s conditions for an agreement were “clear”, including “prohibiting Israel from carrying out operations on Lebanese territory”. However, at the same time, the Jewish state would also be preparing an intensification of its land operations in Lebanon if the talks failed, an Israeli military official assured the American newspaper.
Russia back at the heart of negotiations?
But this is where another power could well make a comeback in the region as part of these negotiations: Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Despite its alliance with Iran, which has only strengthened since October 7, 2023, the Kremlin would be determined to also weigh in on the discussions. According to American and Israeli sources, Russian officials visited Israel at the end of October, and Israeli Minister Ron Dermer himself secretly traveled to Moscow to continue discussions.
Moscow would notably have one proposal: prevent Hezbollah from obtaining its weapons supplies via Syria, Vladimir Putin’s great ally. This same Hezbollah which has always been a faithful supporter of the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and whose links with Iran are obviously no longer in doubt. Another sign that in diplomacy, no alliance is eternal.