The unbreakable wall: why Lebanon and Israel remain apart

Shafaq News/ Lebanon’s troubled relationship with Israel, shaped by decades of wars and conflicts—from the 1978 Litani Operation to the 1982 invasion and the rise of Hezbollah—has long been defined by deep animosity.

Hezbollah’s resistance played a pivotal role in Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. However, the war in 2023 dramatically altered the regional landscape.

In a historic move, Hezbollah launched a massive missile barrage in support of Gaza, targeting major Israeli cities and military sites, prompting a brutal Israeli response. The human cost was devastating, and Lebanon’s economy was left in tatters.

For the first time, Israel, emboldened by its military superiority, openly pursued normalization with Lebanon, signaling a profound shift in the region’s dynamics and the once-unthinkable possibility of direct engagement between the two nations.

A Pivotal Shift

Lebanon, caught in the wake of this historic conflict, now faces an entirely new reality.

Israel has effectively emerged as the region’s uncontested military enforcer, unleashing its might across Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine with ease. Its sweeping incursions into Syria, accelerated by the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, and the continued control over five key strategic points in southern Lebanon, have cemented its dominance, marking a dangerous turning point in Lebanese sovereignty.

The war shattered the carefully maintained balance of deterrence. Hezbollah, long seen as Lebanon’s main line of defense against Israeli aggression, suffered crippling losses. Its senior leadership, including Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, was decimated in targeted strikes, and the group’s critical communications infrastructure was obliterated, leaving its mid-level operatives scattered and disorganized.

Despite a heroic resistance that stalled Israel’s ground advances, the strategic shift was undeniable. Hezbollah’s power has been irrevocably weakened, and Lebanon, once a bulwark against Israeli aggression, now finds itself exposed and vulnerable.

Hezbollah’s intervention under the banner of "support for Gaza" is widely viewed as its most costly miscalculation. In the eyes of many, the move has undermined its deterrent power. Israel’s swift and devastating retaliation prompted a dramatic shift in both political and military calculations within Lebanon.

While Hezbollah’s leadership continues to preach resistance as the only viable path, cracks in its once-impenetrable defenses are evident. The fall of Al-Assad’s regime has further compounded Hezbollah’s troubles, cutting off critical supply routes and leaving the group exposed to new challenges both internally and externally.

As Lebanon grapples with these shifting dynamics, long-simmering internal divisions have intensified, making Hezbollah’s position more precarious than ever.

A Nation Divided

The prospect of normalization with Israel has only deepened Lebanon’s political divide. Hezbollah, joined by allies like the Amal Movement and the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), remains firmly opposed, with Hassan Nasrallah previously declaring, “Lebanon will never bow to Israeli dictates, nor will it abandon its resistance.”

He pointed to Israel’s continued occupation of Lebanese territory, airspace violations, and aggression in Palestine as key reasons for this unwavering stance. With at least 65 seats out of 128 in Lebanon’s 128-member parliament, Hezbollah and its alliances stand as a powerful force against any move toward normalization.

On the other side, Western-aligned parties such as the Lebanese Forces (LF) and Kataeb Party have begun to adopt a more pragmatic view. LF leader Samir Geagea has acknowledged Lebanon’s harsh economic realities, suggesting, “Economic realities may one day force Lebanon to consider all options, but this does not mean sacrificing our principles.”

With inflation soaring past 250% in 2023 and the national debt exceeding $100 billion, some politicians are cautiously considering new approaches. Yet, even among these factions, the idea of direct engagement with Israel remains highly sensitive and deeply divisive.

Despite the tension, Lebanon has yet to make an official move toward normalization, though some voices are calling for change. Independent Lawmakers like Paula Yaacoubian have publicly argued that “Normalization with Israel should not be a taboo,” signaling that the debate is far from over.

Diplomacy under Fire

Lebanon remains caught between internal divisions, relentless Israeli military pressure, and international backing for Israel. While Hezbollah’s military operations are now halted, Lebanon’s diplomatic efforts have yielded little, leaving the country in a precarious position.

Repeated complaints to the United Nations about Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty have gone unanswered, with little concrete action to follow. Lebanon’s diplomatic struggle with Israel is a history of unfulfilled promises. UN Security Council Resolution 425, passed in 1978 after Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon, demanded Israel’s withdrawal, but it was only after years of resistance that Israel finally pulled out in 2000. Similarly, UN Resolution 1701, which led to a ceasefire after the 2006 conflict, failed to prevent ongoing Israeli violations.

Despite these challenges, Lebanon continues to pursue diplomatic channels, as military confrontation is not a viable option against Israel’s overwhelming military dominance, backed by unwavering US and Western support.

When 'Support' Means Pressure

Washington has intensified its efforts to push Lebanon toward normalization with Israel, viewing it as a key strategic objective. The pressure escalated following the Abraham Accords, which saw several Arab nations establish ties with Israel. Now, Lebanon is in the spotlight.

Deputy US Special Envoy to the Middle East Morgan Ortagus recently visited Beirut, reportedly delivering a stark warning to Lebanese officials; failure to engage could provoke expanded Israeli military operations. A Lebanese official, speaking anonymously, revealed, “The Americans made it clear that continued instability along the border could justify stronger Israeli military action.”

Beyond security concerns, Washington is also leveraging Lebanon’s economic crisis. US officials have reportedly signaled that substantial international assistance—including support for Lebanon’s collapsing infrastructure and financial sector—would be more forthcoming if Beirut reconsidered its stance on Israel.

A senior American diplomat pointedly remarked, “Lebanon cannot expect unlimited international support while rejecting the political realities of the region.”

Despite mounting pressure, Lebanese authorities remain firm. Foreign Minister Youssef Raji dismissed the notion of normalization as “inaccurate,” asserting, “Normalization is not on the table, and direct political negotiations with Israel are completely rejected.” Lebanon continues to adhere to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which conditions peace on Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Meanwhile, Washington continues to apply military leverage to shape Lebanon’s trajectory. Since 2006, it has funneled over $2.5 billion into the Lebanese Armed Forces, ostensibly to strengthen state institutions and curb Hezbollah’s influence. At the same time, American sanctions have targeted Hezbollah-linked banks and businesses, freezing more than $1 billion in assets.

A senior US official underscored the broader objective, “Our goal is to strengthen Lebanon’s institutions while ensuring that terrorist organizations like Hezbollah do not dictate its future.”

One of the most contentious issues remains the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which mandates the Lebanese army’s deployment north of the Litani River and the disarmament of all armed groups.

Washington argues that Lebanon has failed to fully enforce the resolution, while Hezbollah insists its provisions apply only south of the Litani.

Rejecting foreign pressure, Hezbollah’s newly appointed Secretory, Naim Qassem, asserted, “Resolution 1701 does not give Israel or the US the right to dictate Lebanon’s security policies. We will not disarm under foreign pressure.”

The Unbridgeable Gap

The road to normalization with Israel is fraught with deep-rooted obstacles; territorial disputes, internal divisions, Hezbollah’s influence, and rigid legal barriers.

At the heart of the conflict lies the Shebaa Farms, a 25-square-kilometer area captured by Israel in 1967. Lebanon continues to claim it, and Hezbollah uses this dispute to justify maintaining its armed presence along the border.

Equally contentious is Lebanon’s Palestinian refugee population of 400,000. Many fear normalization could lead to their permanent settlement, threatening Lebanon’s sectarian balance.

Hezbollah’s influence adds yet another layer of complexity. As a powerful political and military force, its refusal to disarm ensures that any effort toward diplomatic engagement with Israel faces fierce opposition. Hezbollah’s sway over Lebanon’s foreign policy creates an impenetrable barrier for those advocating for peace with Israel.

The country’s legal framework also poses a significant hurdle. The 1955 Boycott Law criminalizes any form of engagement with Israel, further solidifying the barriers to normalization.

A 2024 survey by the Beirut Center for Strategic Studies found that 85% of Lebanese citizens oppose normalization, with the fiercest opposition coming from the Shia community (94%), and the lowest among Christians (62%). As legal expert Karim Basha put it, “Under current legislation, even indirect dealings with Israel could result in severe penalties.”