Hezbollah has made it clear it is not satisfied with the terms of a ceasefire agreement currently under negotiation, demanding changes to key elements of the deal. The group’s rejection focuses on the involvement of Germany and the United Kingdom in a proposed international commission, a committee that would oversee the implementation of the agreement. Hezbollah is particularly sensitive about foreign oversight over Lebanese infrastructure, including the country’s ports, borders, and even its airport.
According to Lebanese media, Hezbollah has submitted its response to Lebanon’s Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati. The submission was made after Hezbollah reviewed the ceasefire proposal from U.S. special envoy Amos Hochstein, and it was clear that the Iran-backed group was unwilling to accept the involvement of certain Western nations. Hezbollah is particularly opposed to any role for Germany and the UK in overseeing Lebanon’s critical infrastructure under the terms of the agreement.
“The positive ambiguity is Lebanon’s way to deal with the American proposal,” sources close to the negotiations revealed. While the wording of Lebanon’s response to the proposal is still being finalized, sources are confident that it will be delivered to the American embassy in Beirut ahead of Hochstein’s arrival, scheduled for Tuesday. The intention is to address concerns and introduce revisions to the deal to better reflect Lebanon’s interests, particularly in terms of foreign involvement.
Hezbollah’s stance has raised significant concerns in both Israel and Lebanon. Israeli officials were reportedly hoping for Hezbollah’s outright rejection of the deal, which would allow the continuation of hostilities. However, Hezbollah’s approach seems to be one of cautious negotiation, leaving room for some form of agreement that could avoid further escalation.
The ceasefire negotiations are framed within the context of the 2006 UN resolution 1701, which aimed to prevent further conflict between Hezbollah and Israel following the 2006 Lebanon war. In line with this, political sources claim that Lebanon’s response will likely align with the provisions of the resolution. But sources close to the process suggest that Hochstein is not expected to announce a final agreement during his visit. Instead, he is anticipated to relay Lebanon’s feedback to Israel.
“The negotiations have become serious, and Netanyahu is under double pressure to stop the fighting,” one source explained. The possibility of reaching a ceasefire is seen as increasingly urgent, with the situation growing more dire by the day. Some political analysts even believe that this week could be decisive, as Lebanon is under heavy pressure to either agree to a ceasefire or face the continuation of hostilities until mid-January, when U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
The proposed deal, which has yet to be finalized, outlines several key elements that are highly contentious. Among these provisions is the establishment of an international commission to oversee the implementation of the ceasefire. This commission would be headed by an American general, with the participation of a French general. However, it also includes the controversial requirement that Hezbollah dismantle its military infrastructure in southern Lebanon, including areas north and south of the Litani River.
In addition, the proposal maintains Israel’s right to intervene if the agreement is violated in ways that cannot be resolved through negotiation. This stipulation ensures that Israel retains a level of military leverage even after the agreement is signed, complicating any potential deal.
Another crucial aspect of the deal involves the return of displaced civilians on both sides of the border, as well as the strengthening of both Lebanese peacekeeping forces and the Lebanese army. However, according to sources close to Hezbollah, the involvement of Germany and the UK in overseeing these operations is a non-starter for the group.
“We do not agree with the participation of Germany and the UK,” a Hezbollah spokesperson stated. “Their involvement would mean a loss of Lebanese sovereignty, which is unacceptable.” Instead, Hezbollah has signaled its willingness to accept the involvement of American and French representatives, believing that these countries have a more neutral stance in the region.
Lebanese officials have expressed concerns that even if a ceasefire deal can be agreed upon, its implementation could prove difficult. According to a report from Nidaa al-Watan, a Lebanese daily that opposes Hezbollah, the proposed agreement would grant the international commission significant authority over Lebanon’s strategic infrastructure, raising fears of foreign intervention. The commission would have oversight of Lebanon’s ports, airport, and border crossings, powers that many view as overly intrusive.
