Published: 11 December 2025
Last updated: 11 December 2025
Dramatic changes occurred in Lebanon this year. A new Western-aligned president was elected, and a new government was sworn in. The notion of disarming Hezbollah, Iran’s crown jewel and most feared proxy terror organization, is openly debated as the government is officially committed to achieving a monopoly over the use of arms on Lebanon’s soil.
Lebanese politicians raised the possibility of peace with Israel publicly, and for the first time in decades, the government authorized a civilian official, and not a military man, to meet with an Israeli counterpart as part of the ceasefire oversight mechanism. The unprecedented interview of Israel’s ambassador in Washington by a Lebanese media outlet and the peaceful message ambassador Leiter sent to the Lebanese people were unthinkable just a year ago.

Nevertheless, the possibility of a peace treaty with Lebanon is still far away. As Hezbollah is clinging to its arms and Tehran’s destructive shadow still looms over Beirut, Lebanon is unable to walk in the footsteps of the other Arab countries neighboring Israel.
The harsh reality is that as weak as Hezbollah is, the organization's total rejection of the notion of peace with Israel and the fragility of the Lebanese domestic arena, lead to a stalemate that prevents any possibility of moving forward.
Without a strong central government, Lebanon’s ability to engage in any meaningful negotiations with Israel, the way Egypt and Jordan did in the past, and Syria does today, is unrealistic.





Comments1
Wesley Parish11 December at 06:29 am
Since it’s Israel’s habit to reach for WW2 for precedent, Dror shouldn’t complain if I also do that. To wit: Hizbullah is a armed Resistance movement, which the IDF sparked into being by invading Lebanon in 1982, and not leaving. Did any of the armed Resistance movements in Occupied Europe the Allies supported during WW2 ever disarm before the disarming of the Wehrmacht? If not, then why should Hizbullah be treated any different?