Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel had authorised direct negotiations with Lebanon “as soon as possible”, opening a diplomatic channel even as Israeli strikes and Hezbollah fire kept the border war active and raised new doubts over whether a fragile two-week ceasefire between Washington and Tehran can hold. The Israeli prime minister said the proposed talks would focus on disarming Hezbollah and establishing peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon.
The announcement came a day after the heaviest Israeli bombardment of Lebanon since this phase of the war began on 2 March. Reuters reported that more than 300 people were killed in the worst day of fighting, while Lebanese officials later put the overall death toll since 2 March at 1,888, with more than 6,000 wounded. Lebanese authorities have also said more than one million people have been displaced.
Netanyahu framed the initiative as a response to what he called repeated Lebanese requests for direct engagement. Shortly before his statement, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the only route out of the crisis was a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon followed by direct negotiations, adding that he was pursuing a diplomatic track that had begun to draw a positive response from international actors. That alignment in public language suggested some movement towards talks, but it did not disguise the gap between the two sides over timing and conditions.
Lebanon’s position, as conveyed by a senior official, is that a temporary ceasefire must come first to create space for broader talks, with the United States acting as mediator and guarantor. Hezbollah has taken a harder line. Ali Fayyad, a lawmaker from the group, rejected direct negotiations with Israel and said Beirut should insist on a ceasefire before any further steps, while also demanding an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and the return of displaced people.
That disagreement matters because the diplomatic move is unfolding amid a wider regional dispute over the scope of the U. S.-Iran truce announced by Donald Trump. Israel and Washington have both said Lebanon is not covered by that ceasefire. Iran and Pakistan, which mediated the arrangement, say Lebanon was explicitly part of it. The result is a ceasefire whose legal and political boundaries remain contested at the very moment when negotiators are trying to prevent the regional confrontation from expanding again.
European officials have added to pressure for restraint. Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, said the U. S.-Iran ceasefire should extend to Lebanon and argued that Israeli actions were placing the arrangement under severe strain. Her intervention reflected a broader concern among Western and regional governments that diplomacy with Tehran cannot be insulated from the war with Hezbollah if Israeli operations in Lebanon continue at their present intensity.
Israeli officials have signalled that talks could begin in Washington next week. Reuters reported that a U. S. State Department official confirmed Washington would host a meeting to discuss ongoing ceasefire negotiations. Yet Israel has also made clear that the diplomatic opening does not amount to an immediate halt in military action. Even as talk of negotiations emerged, Israeli attacks continued in Beirut’s southern suburbs and elsewhere, while Hezbollah said it was carrying out military operations against Israeli targets and firing into northern Israel.
The substance of any negotiation would be formidable. Under the U. S.-brokered November 2024 ceasefire accord that halted an earlier round of Israel-Hezbollah fighting, Lebanon agreed that only state security forces should bear arms, implying Hezbollah’s disarmament. Israel says a later effort by the Lebanese army to enforce that principle fell short. Netanyahu’s latest proposal appears designed to revive that unresolved issue, but in a far more combustible setting, with Israeli forces having invaded parts of Lebanon last month and Hezbollah still presenting itself as both armed actor and political force.
The diplomacy also carries broader economic and strategic stakes. Reuters reported that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has fallen sharply since the Iran war began, with only a handful of vessels moving through in the first 24 hours of the ceasefire, compared with normal traffic of around 140 ships a day before the conflict. Tehran has cited Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon as one of the main sticking points. That means the Lebanon file is no longer a separate frontier issue alone; it is now tied directly to energy flows, maritime security and the credibility of a wider regional de-escalation effort.
