Over the smoldering skyline of Beirut’s southern Dahiyeh suburb, new forced evacuation orders from the Israeli military echo through rapidly emptying neighborhoods.
The Israeli warnings, along with the bombing of Beirut and other parts of southern Lebanon, contrasted sharply with a French proposal for diplomatic intervention aimed at pausing the latest Israeli war on its northern neighbor.
But increasingly, some analysts say, the apparent dissonance between Israel’s actions and talks to end the fighting is actually a reflection of the new ground reality Israel is creating: occupying Lebanese territory to give it more leverage in any negotiations.
Already, the human cost of Israel’s war is staggering. According to the Ministry of Public Health, Lebanon has been facing a widespread Israeli offensive since March 2, which has killed nearly 850 people, including 107 children and 66 women. More than a million people have been displaced within the country, forced into overcrowded shelters. After Hezbollah targeted Israeli military sites in response to a joint US-Israeli attack on Iran in late February, the collapse shattered all that remained of the November 2024 ceasefire.
In the midst of this humanitarian tragedy, French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed organizing direct talks between Lebanon and Israel in Paris, warning that “everything must be done to prevent (Lebanon’s) descent into chaos.” To support the diplomatic push, Paris announced the delivery of 60 tons of humanitarian aid, along with armored personnel carriers, to Lebanese forces.
However, analysts say, the Israeli military, rather than French diplomacy, is setting the agenda for the proposed talks.
Geography is a weapon
Israel, according to political analysts, will look to leverage its military presence to impose a radically changed security architecture, using its occupation of southern villages to dictate new realities on the ground.
According to Ziad Majed, a political science professor at the American University of Paris, the undeclared conditions of the current diplomatic push will force the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah under the strict supervision of the United States and France. By holding onto Lebanese territory, Israel is forcing Lebanon to negotiate over its sovereignty, with the question of whether Israeli forces will eventually withdraw or whether the currently occupied territories will be turned into permanent unpopulated territory.
This strategy is currently unfolding on the battlefield. Israel has massed six military divisions — roughly 100,000 soldiers — along its northern border. Military experts point to the strategic southern Lebanese town of Khiyam as the focus of Israel’s upcoming ground push.
Retired Lebanese Brigadier-General Baha Hallal told Al Jazeera Arabic that Khiyam acts as a “geographical key” that overlooks the Marjoun Plain and the Hasbani Valley leading to the Litani River. Halal warned that controlling Khiyam would enable Israel to cut off communication between villages in the south and establish a de facto buffer zone.
Imad Salami, a professor of international relations at the Lebanese American University, argued that Israel’s troop deployment signals its belief that, as a military superpower, there is no rush to negotiate.
Disarmament and domestic rifts
Meanwhile, the crisis in Lebanon is also exposing deep communal rifts within the country.
Al Jazeera Arabic’s Majen Ibrahim has reported that official sources are in urgent talks with the Lebanese presidency, government and parliament to form a six-member delegation of ambassador-level diplomats to potentially negotiate a ceasefire in Cyprus. However, Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri has refused to include any figures representing the Shiite community in the delegation, while Ibrahim noted that an Israeli ceasefire must precede any political talks.
Debate over Hezbollah’s disarmament — a demand not just of Israel but of Western interlocutors — threatens to drag Lebanon into civil strife.
Some analysts have argued that the Lebanese military should do more. “The state must force them to hand over their weapons, even if it means using force,” political analyst Tony Boulos told Al Jazeera.
But others, including political researcher Ali Matar, dismissed that assertion as reckless. He noted that ordering the national army, which includes a significant proportion of Shiite soldiers, to fight the Shiite-led Hezbollah would fracture the military. He highlighted the state’s failure to protect its citizens during the 16 months of Israeli violations before the ongoing wider war.
Talk under fire
Neither warring party is ready for immediate concessions. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has publicly dismissed the prospect of direct talks, insisting that the Lebanese government must first take concrete steps to curb Hezbollah’s military activities.
On the other hand, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem recently declared that diplomatic solutions have failed to stop the killing, warned the Lebanese government against making “free concessions” and insisted that the battlefield dictates the final outcome.
Some analysts have drawn parallels between the current political climate and the 1983 Israeli occupation of Beirut. Those historic talks, held in the shadow of an Israeli military occupation, culminated in the May 17, 1983 accord — a peace deal that ultimately stalled after sectarian divisions in Lebanon.
Four decades later, a new generation of Lebanese families is now huddled in rain-soaked shelters across Beirut. There is a flurry of diplomacy, but for now, their homes in the south are reduced to bargaining chips for Israel’s occupying army.
(tags to be translated) Features
