📰 Volltext Hezbollah's Cease fire Veto
📝 Zusammenfassung
Zvi Bar'el analysiert: Hisbollah-Chef Qassem und Iran lehnen den US-vermittelten Waffenstillstand kategorisch ab. Für Teheran ist ein Israel-Libanon-Deal existenzbedrohend – ein Nullsummenspiel mit der Strasse von Hormuz. Die libanesische Regierung zeigt bemerkenswerte Unabhängigkeit und verhandelt direkt mit Israel. Die Idee von 'Pilotzonen' mit libanesischer Armeepräsenz ist vielversprechend, aber technisch unausgereift. Bar'el vergleicht mit dem Irak: Dort scheiterte die Entwaffnung pro-iranischer Milizen bisher.
---
📰 Volltext (Haaretz) — Zvi Bar'el, 5. Juni 2026
"As long as our villages are being bombed, northern Israel will not be safe," Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem said Thursday, making clear that the Shi'ite group didn't recognize the cease-fire that the Americans declared the day before, and that Hezbollah hadn't "given any commitment to anyone not to resist aggression or respond to it."
Qassem was followed by another Hezbollah leader, Mahmoud Qamati, who told the BBC that there was no cease-fire and that the group continued to defend south Beirut's Dahiyeh neighborhood, where Hezbollah is based.
Both were preceded by Esmail Qaani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, who laid down the official line: The basic condition for a cease-fire was Israel's withdrawal to the lines before the current war with Iran.
From Tehran's perspective, an agreement between Israel and Lebanon is a strategic threat, not only to Hezbollah but also to Iran's broader operations against the United States in the Gulf. This is a zero-sum game in which any concession in Lebanon is effectively a victory for the enemy in the Strait of Hormuz.
The latest round of direct talks between Israel and Lebanon in Washington lasted more than six hours and, according to Lebanese sources, nearly collapsed after the Lebanese representative, Simon Karam, threatened to walk out over what he called Israel's rigid stance. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly had to step in, prevent a breakdown and secure a statement acceptable to both sides.
For now, the significance of these talks remains in their very existence, despite Hezbollah's categorical opposition and Iran's threats to expand the war in the Gulf if a cease-fire in Lebanon isn't achieved. But a cease-fire isn't enough for Iran, which seeks, through Hezbollah, to impose "geographic" rules of engagement on the Lebanese government.
Under this framework, Israel would agree not to attack Dahiyeh and Hezbollah would agree not to attack Tel Aviv. Israel also wouldn't strike other Lebanese cities such as Tyre and Sidon, and Hezbollah wouldn't attack Israeli cities in the north like Haifa, Acre and Safed. But Israeli communities near the border would remain legitimate targets as long as Israel remained in southern Lebanon.
According to Lebanese sources, these proposals were rejected by Beirut, which seeks to exclude Tehran from efforts to shape an agreement, with Lebanon also making clear to Iran and Hezbollah that only the cabinet in Beirut will determine the terms.
On Thursday, the Hezbollah-linked newspaper Al-Akhbar published the main points of the understandings reached in Washington, only to preface them with a sharply worded condemnation, saying that "the puppet government in Lebanon, in its brazen arrogance, approved the continuation of the Israeli occupation without setting a date for the end of the war, accepted the Israeli and U.S. request to separate the 'Iran file' from the 'Lebanon file,' and blamed the continuation of the war on the resistance [Hezbollah], portraying the group as an enemy of the state."
"The Lebanese government is impressively demonstrating independent decision-making against Iran and Hezbollah. I'm not sure Israeli officials sufficiently appreciate the courage of this step."
Not only are Iran and Hezbollah digging in their heels to block the implementation of the understandings. Israel, too, regards the talks as a diktat from Donald Trump, who is effectively setting the boundaries of Israel's freedom of action and, contrary to Israel's position, appears to prefer a unified multifront campaign linking Iran and Lebanon.
The colorful exchange this week between the U.S. president and Benjamin Netanyahu, who was described by Trump as "crazy," only underscored that, as far as Iran and its Lebanese proxy are concerned, Israel is little more than a footnote.
Still, the talks are continuing based on the idea of establishing so-called pilot zones. The idea is to deploy Lebanese army troops in areas from which both Hezbollah and Israeli forces would be banned. The first stage would include a handful of villages south of the Litani River.
Israel's condition is the total removal of Hezbollah from these zones. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said Thursday that the army would be able to begin deploying in the coming days. But a Lebanese source close to the government told Haaretz that the announcement was "premature."
"Many technical details have yet to be resolved and will require more deliberations before this process can begin," he said, noting that there is still no agreement on what qualifies as hostile activity.
He then posed a few unanswered questions: "Will any movement by a Hezbollah member be considered such activity? Will Israel demand that the Lebanese army arrest civilians just because they have a link to Hezbollah? Will residents be allowed to return home to those pilot zones?"
"These are just a handful of problems that haven't been resolved. Also, it hasn't been agreed that Israel will withdraw from all Lebanese territory at the end of the process, and it's unclear if and when the Lebanese army will move to disarm Hezbollah in the rest of the country."
The next round of talks is planned for later in the month. It will rest on the principle that the countries have "reaffirmed that they have no hostile intent toward one another," the most important clause that the Lebanese president has adopted.
"Before talking about a vision of a peace deal, it's important to understand that the Lebanese government is impressively demonstrating independent decision-making against Iran and Hezbollah," said a Lebanese analyst who requested anonymity.
"This government is operating under the most adverse conditions. The country is broke, its coffers are empty, its army is weak and lacks means. Israel has conquered a lot of its territory. A powerful, armed group threatens to drag it into a civil war, and Iran is trying to use it as a bargaining chip to serve its own interests."
"Despite this situation, it has decided to break a historical taboo by denying Hezbollah's military legitimacy and negotiating directly with Israel. I'm not sure Israeli officials sufficiently appreciate the courage of this step."
"This is expected to be a long, bloody war in which Lebanon will probably pay a heavy price. But when you view your relations with Lebanon only through the lens of Hezbollah's operations, you miss the strategic partnership that this government is offering you on the regional level."
He noted that Lebanon is a special case, a country directly controlled by Iran and where the cabinet and parliament contain representatives of an organization that serves Iranian interests — with the country taking on Iran.
In this regard, it's worth remembering the heavy pressure that Trump put on Iraq to disarm the Shi'ite militias. He also prevented the selection of Nouri al-Maliki, a pro-Iranian politician, as prime minister. He also demanded, unsuccessfully, that the Iraqi government not appoint cabinet members who represent the militias.
Despite this, Iraq continues to maintain close ties with Iran. Iranian allies serve in parliament and control important state institutions. And while some Shi'ite militias have announced a willingness to lay down their arms and put their fighters under the command of the Iraqi army, this process is expected to take a long time, if it's ever completed.
There are no signs whatsoever that the Iraqi government plans to embark on a mission to disarm the militias; it hasn't outlawed them. Trump hasn't asked Iraq, as he has asked Lebanon, to sign the Abraham Accords, negotiate with Israel or announce that it has "no hostile intent" toward Israel.
As in Iraq, people in Lebanon don't think the government taking on Hezbollah is realistic. But the solution to the immediate Hezbollah threat lies in the gradual process of the Lebanese army taking control of the south, and the Lebanese government being able to help more than a million refugees return home and rebuild.
The government wouldn't only reestablish formal sovereignty over the area, but also "public sovereignty."
---