Journalists across the Arab world reacted Tuesday evening to the talks held in Washington between Israel and Lebanon, openly criticizing the Hezbollah terrorist organization and questioning its role in dragging the country into conflict. “It’s worth remembering who entered the war on October 8,” one commentator wrote.
Commenting on social media platform X, journalist Tony Boulos expressed cautious optimism, writing that “the hope is that the process will mature into a fair peace agreement that preserves Lebanon’s sovereignty and security while promoting stability and prosperity for both the Lebanese and Israeli peoples. The road is still long, but the very beginning of this process is already a historic step in itself.”
Lebanese journalist Mustafa Himawi struck a more skeptical tone, stating, “I support this government and I hate Hezbollah. But can someone explain what exactly the Lebanese government has to offer Israel? Is today’s meeting anything more than a symbolic exercise? We may not like it, but Iran is the player holding the cards.”
Another Lebanese journalist, George Haddad, argued that negotiations themselves reflect the imbalance between the sides. “If the two warring parties were in equal positions, there would be no need for negotiations; there would be war. Negotiations are opened for one reason only: to allow the losing side to preserve what remains, and that is our situation,” he wrote.
Highest-level engagement between Israel and Lebanon since 1993
He added, “So instead of blaming those seeking to end the war, it’s worth remembering who is currently fighting and failing to repel the invasion; who entered the war on October 8; who initiated the 2006 conflict after Israel withdrew; who attempted to take over Beirut in 2008; who has been accused of trafficking Captagon; who has been linked to the assassinations of politicians, journalists, and intellectuals in Lebanon; who attacked civilians during the 2019 protests; and who stored explosive materials in the port of Beirut. War is not measured by the number of casualties or mere survival, but by the ability to achieve objectives and protect civilians.”
The remarks came after a historic meeting between Israeli and Lebanese officials in Washington, the first such high-level contact between the two governments since 1993, which concluded with an agreement to move toward direct, face-to-face negotiations.
In a joint statement, the participants said the April 14 meeting at the US State Department included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, senior adviser Michael Needham, US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter, and Lebanon’s Ambassador to the United States Nada Hamadeh Mouawad.
“The meeting marked the highest-level engagement between the governments of Israel and Lebanon since 1993,” the statement said, adding that discussions focused on steps needed to launch direct negotiations. The US welcomed the development as a historic achievement and reaffirmed its support for continued talks, as well as for Lebanon’s efforts to reassert a monopoly over weapons and reduce excessive Iranian influence. It also expressed hope that the talks would go beyond the framework of the 2024 agreement and lead to a comprehensive peace deal.
The developments come against the backdrop of ongoing exchanges of fire in southern Lebanon and increasingly aggressive rhetoric from Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem. According to the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, Qassem voiced firm opposition to the negotiations, calling them futile contacts that amount to surrender and humiliation for the Lebanese people while stripping the country of its leverage against “the enemy.”
He stressed that no party has the authority to steer Lebanon down such a path without broad internal consensus, which he said does not currently exist, and called on political leaders to take a firm stance and cancel the talks, claiming such a move would prompt the international community to “come running after Lebanon” and strengthen its position.