Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam (C) and Chief of Staff Maj. Gen Hassan Audi (R), acting temporary chief of the Lebanese army, are briefed by Lebanese commanders during a visit to the town of Khiam, one of the most affected areas in Lebanon in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, near the Israeli border, on February 28. Photo by E{A-EFE

The call to normalize ties surface when the United States, which along with France brokered the Nov. 27 cease-fire agreement that ended the Israel-Hezbollah war, announced that it was bringing together Lebanon and Israel for talks to resolve diplomatically “several issues,” including the release of Lebanese detainees and land border disputes.

There are 13 disputed border points along the Blue Line, a 75-mile temporary line set by the United Nations in 2000 to confirm withdrawal of Israeli forces from south Lebanon after 22 years of military occupation, which began with the 1978 invasion.

Added to them were five hilltop strategic positions that Israel refused to relinquish when it withdrew its forces from south Lebanon on Feb. 18, which the Nov. 27 cease-fire accord called for.

The first immediate outcome of the fresh U.S. diplomatic push was the release this week of five Lebanese, including an Army soldier, who were snatched by Israeli forces in southern Lebanon during the war with Hezbollah that started in support of Gaza in October 2023.

About seven other civilians and Hezbollah followers were to regain freedom, according to an official Lebanese source, who told UPI, “We want the return of all prisoners.”

The source, who requested not to be named, explained that the negotiations were being handled by the five-nation military committee entrusted with supervising the implementation of the ceasefire as part of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended an Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006.

The focus is on the release of the Lebanese prisoners, Israel’s withdrawal from the five strategic points and “rectifying” the 13 disputed border points to resolve the border dispute.

The monitoring committee, co-chaired by the U.S. and France, also includes Lebanon, Israel and the U.N. peacekeeping force.

The Lebanese official source emphasized that the committee is “a military one,” with specific tasks.

“Our position is clear. We want a complete withdrawal. … We don’t want any presence of Israeli occupation on our land,” he said.

However, Israel seems determined to keep the newly occupied positions in southern Lebanon. On Friday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said that the Israeli Army would remain deployed at the five strategic points “indefinitely,” regardless of negotiations over 13 disputed points on the border.

According to retired Lebanese Brig. Gen. Hassan Jouni, the five strategic positions should not be “an issue to negotiate,” as Israel should have evacuated them when it withdrew Feb. 18.

Jouni argued that Israel might have retained them to achieve “some additional security arrangements or political gains,” like normalization “but that does not mean we would reach that point.”

“Israel, which is currently experiencing the euphoria of regional superiority, aims to capitalize on this favorable moment … by imposing conditions and reaching an agreement,” he told UPI.

He, noted, however, that Lebanon can no longer have “its own strategies” separate from the Arab countries and should emerge from the war with “minimal losses.”

The question is whether and how Lebanon could face the U.S.-backed Israeli “normalization wish.”

According to the Lebanese official source, Lebanon is “not concerned,” as this issue has not been raised. “It is mere talk,” he said.

Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, argued that the U.S. mediation for the demarcation of disputed border points means that Israel tends on signing a peace treaty with Lebanon.

“Without a Lebanese commitment to sign a peace treaty, Israel will never negotiate the withdrawal from the contested border areas,” Khashan told UPI.

Israel, on its part, keeps on tightening the noose around Hezbollah, attacking its bases on an almost daily basis, going after its leadership and preventing it from rearming.

Khashan explained that Hezbollah is in “a very vulnerable position” and will eventually accept that it has lost the war with Israel.

“They may oppose Lebanon’s normalizing ties with Israel, but they are not in position to veto it,” Khashan said, noting “a shift in Lebanese politics” that does not tolerate armed groups anymore.

The Lebanese government committed to the full implementation of Resolution 1701 under which Hezbollah can no longer launch attacks against Israel and should eventually disarm. The Iran-backed militant group needs time to recover, if ever possible, now that its main supply route via Tehran was blocked after the fall of its main ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Resolving the border dispute would strip Hezbollah from its alibi to pursue anti-Israel resistance.

“If diplomacy fails, then we will see,” Jouni said.

He suggested that if Lebanon were to achieve normalization with Israel, it shouldn’t do that before Saudi Arabia.

Is peace and normalization between Israel and the remaining Arab countries more likely after the Gaza and Lebanon wars? Or does any significant move toward peace still depend heavily on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

According to Khashan, Saudi Arabia is preparing the region for “a situation” in which it will make peace with Israel eventually.

“Saudi Arabia wants to initiate negotiations leading to a path that would lead to a Palestinian statehood,” he said. “But at the end, this path will transpire into nothing.”

However, this time, Saudi Arabia will be the last country to sign a peace accord with Israel, not Lebanon, he said.