Hezbollah faces mounting pressure due to discussions of normalization between Lebanon and Israel. Lebanese officials have strongly denied intentions for normalization, citing territorial concerns and ceasefire violations. Despite current power dynamics favoring Israel, many assert that Lebanon remains unified against normalization, emphasizing alignment with Arab positions on a two-state solution.
The internal landscape within Hezbollah is increasingly tense due to discussions in Israel about potential normalization between Lebanon and Israel. According to political sources cited by the pro-Hezbollah newspaper Al-Diyar, both the presidential office and the government in Beirut have firmly denounced any prospect of normalization. Key concerns include Israeli control over territory in southern Lebanon and alleged ceasefire violations.
Lebanese officials have categorically denied that indirect negotiations with Israel are aimed at normalization, emphasizing that these discussions solely concern border disputes, particularly along the land boundary. Nonetheless, the very notion of talks sparked unrest within Hezbollah and its ally, the Amal Movement.
Political representatives in Beirut have asserted that Lebanon’s stance against normalization is resolute and widely supported. They acknowledged the current power dynamics may favor Israel, but expressed confidence that the status quo will not endure indefinitely, hinting that Hezbollah and its allies possess numerous strategic options left to be utilized.
Furthermore, the sources indicated that the United States comprehends that Lebanon is unlikely to pursue normalization with Israel. They reiterated Lebanon’s commitment to align itself with the unified Arab position, particularly that articulated by Saudi Arabia, which ties the normalization discourse to a two-state solution—a scenario Israel is not currently moving towards.
Hezbollah parliament member Ali Fayyad affirmed, “Lebanon has not accepted and will not accept normalization with the Israelis. Israel is an enemy that contradicts Lebanon’s existence, identity, and interests.” He underscored the resistance movement’s representation of a broad popular sentiment within Lebanon, asserting that such a position cannot be disregarded. Notably, Fayyad cautioned relevant parties against miscalculating the situation amid Hezbollah’s diminished parliamentary majority following recent elections.
The tension within Hezbollah surrounding normalization talks highlights a complex interplay between Lebanon’s political entities and its historical stance against Israel. Despite pressure for normalization, Lebanese officials maintain a firm consensus against such a move, while Hezbollah and its allies indicate their readiness to leverage potential advantages. The outcome of these discussions remains contingent upon broader regional dynamics and the influence of major stakeholders such as the United States and Saudi Arabia.
Original Source: www.israelhayom.com
