As Lebanon and Israel sit down for a second round of talks on Thursday, the Lebanese people are deeply divided over a delicate question: Is opening a dialogue with a longstanding enemy a necessary step to prevent more bloodshed or a betrayal of national values?
Last week, the State Department hosted a round of ambassador-level talks in Washington, which led to a cease-fire that suspended fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group. Hezbollah is Iran’s most powerful proxy in the Middle East, and ending the conflict in Lebanon could help clear a hurdle in negotiations between the United States and Iran.
“Talking with Israel is a very divisive step in Lebanon,” said Camille El Khoury, 39, a general manager of an e-commerce company and a Christian who favors the talks.
These are the first direct talks in decades between Lebanon and Israel, and they come after two Israeli-Hezbollah wars in the past three years.
The latest conflict began in early March, when Hezbollah attacked Israel in solidarity with Iran as it came under a U.S.-Israeli assault. The war has since killed more than 2,000 people in Lebanon, while Israel has seized towns in southern Lebanon and carried out widespread demolitions.
Israel says its actions are aimed at securing communities in northern Israel. Israeli authorities say 15 soldiers and two civilians had been killed by Hezbollah since early March.
The 10-day cease-fire in Lebanon took effect late last week and has largely held. But exchanges of fire this week along the border have put it under strain.
The killing on Wednesday of a Lebanese newspaper reporter, Amal Khalil, and the wounding of a Lebanese photojournalist, Zeinab Faraj, also raised tensions before the new talks. Lebanese news media said they were killed by an Israeli airstrike. Israel said that the episode was under review and that it would provide more details later.
Under the truce terms, only Lebanon’s national security forces are permitted to carry weapons in the southern region closest to Israel’s border. The agreement also said that Israel maintained its right to self-defense, but would not carry out “offensive military operations” against Lebanese targets.
President Joseph Aoun said on Wednesday that Lebanon would push to extend the cease-fire and call for an end to Israeli demolitions in the talks.
Lebanon has three dominant groups — Shiite and Sunni Muslims and Christians. For many Shiites, who make up the bulk of Hezbollah’s support base, the negotiations feel like a betrayal.
Some have expressed concern that the talks could lead to a normalization of diplomatic relations for the first time since Israel’s founding in 1948.
Other communities are angry that Hezbollah has pulled them into another war with Israel at Iran’s behest. They acknowledge that the government has little leverage in these talks and are worried about the outcome.
“Lebanon has been dragged into a confrontation that does not serve its direct national interests,” Mosbah Alsaket, 29, an engineer and a Sunni Muslim from the northern city of Tripoli, said in a phone interview.
Mr. Alsaket said his expectations were low for talks, doubting that they would yield meaningful results. He said this was because the government does not have a monopoly on military power or decisions on war.
Hezbollah’s coordination with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps further amplifies the group’s influence on the ground and constrains the Lebanese government in negotiations, he added.
“Hezbollah has left us in a very bad position,” he said.
Jean El Cheikh, an oncologist, said the government must press on several issues, particularly the question of land in southern Lebanon. He said the government should also seek backing from Arab and European allies to strengthen its position in talks.
More important, he added, it should engage with those across Lebanon’s various sectarian and religious groups, especially moderate and centrist voices open to a way out of the crisis.
“True peace first requires internal Lebanese reconciliation to end sectarian paralysis,” he noted. Lebanon remains deeply scarred by a bitter 15-year civil war that ended in 1990.
Mr. El Cheikh, a Catholic, expressed skepticism about Israel’s intentions, saying it targets journalists and medical workers and is demolishing entire towns — using tactics similar to those used in the war in Gaza.
His concerns were reinforced, he said, when Israel pummeled Lebanon and killed hundreds in a single day alone on April 8, including family members of a Syrian migrant he knew.
“We cannot trust this very extreme Israeli government,” he said. “The only strength in our position is the unification of our national interests and army.”
Mr. El Khoury said the talks had already stirred tensions within his friend group.
For years, he and his school friends have debated various issues in a WhatsApp group. This week, several members left for the first time after heated arguments over the talks, he said in a phone interview.
Those in favor were accused of being collaborators with Israel, while those opposed were seen as Hezbollah sympathizers, he said.
“We are really caught in a difficult place,” Mr. El Khoury said. “But anything is better than staying in limbo.”
Abdi Latif Dahir is a Middle East correspondent for The Times, covering Lebanon and Syria. He is based in Beirut.
The post In Lebanon, Talks With Israel Stir Mix of Anger, Unease and Faint Hope appeared first on New York Times.
