​The Latest Israeli Admission About Hezbollah… Published by a Research Institute

The Israeli-based Alma Research and Education Center has published a new report detailing the ongoing negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, analyzing the precise geopolitical and security conditions surrounding the US-mediated talks between the two nations.
According to the report, “While the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) and Hezbollah continue to exchange daily strikes—despite the ceasefire agreement that went into effect during the night of April 17–18—the third round of direct talks between Israel and Lebanon, mediated by the United States, took place from May 14 to 15.”
The text continues: “The US State Department described the meeting as productive and announced a 45-day extension of the ceasefire agreement to allow room for diplomatic progress. According to the set timeline, discussions on the political-diplomatic track are expected to continue this coming June, while the security track—the most central and sensitive component—is slated to begin on May 29.”
Deep Gaps and Structural Contradictions
“Despite the symbolic and political significance of holding direct talks between Israel and Lebanon, the likelihood of these negotiations yielding a peace agreement that meets the security needs of both sides remains extremely slim,” the institute notes. “In reality, the gaps between the demands of both parties are massive, and their core approaches are fundamentally contradictory. Furthermore, the Lebanese government faces an inherent structural difficulty in executing its security obligations, even if a certain degree of political will exists.”
The report explains that “the Lebanese government and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), fearing a slide into civil war, are unwilling to enter into a direct confrontation with Hezbollah.” It adds: “For its part, Hezbollah categorically refuses to disarm or recognize any Lebanese-Israeli agreement that acknowledges the existence of the State of Israel. Conversely, Israel will not allow Hezbollah to rebuild the military capabilities that pose a direct threat to it. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to envision how stability and reconstruction can be achieved on either side of the border, or how a radical shift can occur regarding Lebanese state sovereignty or Israel-Lebanon relations.”
Words vs. Reality on the Ground
According to the report, “The official Lebanese position focuses heavily on demanding a full Israeli withdrawal from all Lebanese territories, transferring security responsibilities in the south entirely to the Lebanese Army, maintaining Lebanese sovereignty, returning displaced residents, and rebuilding the southern region.” It adds: “At the same time, Beirut publicly declares its commitment to the principle of the state’s exclusive monopoly on the use of force, emphasizing that there is no place for non-state armed groups in Lebanon.”
“However,” the report notes, “there is a vast disconnect between these declarations and the reality on the ground. While the Lebanese government officially adopts the principle of state sovereignty, it fails to enforce it against Hezbollah—the most powerful military, political, and social organization in the country, which has been an active participant in most Lebanese cabinets over the past twenty years. This administrative compliance has characterized the Lebanese government’s behavior since the issuance of the first international resolution calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah (alongside other armed militias in Lebanon) in 2004, following the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri by Hezbollah—namely, UN Security Council Resolution 1559.”
On the other hand, the report stresses that “Israel demands an actual, verifiable disarmament of Hezbollah as an absolute prerequisite for any withdrawal from southern Lebanon or any permanent cessation of strikes. From Israel’s perspective, any agreement that does not fundamentally address Hezbollah’s military capabilities will, at best, result in a temporary truce rather than a strategic change. This is because Hezbollah, operating as a proxy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, seeks the destruction of the State of Israel, having launched wars against it three times: in 2006, 2023, and 2026. During the interim periods between these wars, the group steadily built up its military capabilities for cross-border incursions, rocket launches, and drone deployments.”
Hezbollah’s Rejection of Direct Dialogue
The report highlights that “Hezbollah flatly rejects the existence of any direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, asserting that it will not recognize any agreement reached within this framework. In a statement issued on May 12, the group’s Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, emphasized that Hezbollah only recognizes indirect negotiations with Israel. According to him, conducting direct talks represents a net win for Israel and a free concession from the Lebanese state.”
The Alma Center continues: “Qassem further clarified that the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons is completely excluded from negotiations with Israel, framing it as an internal Lebanese matter that can only be discussed within a future Lebanese national security strategy—and even then, while preserving the ‘Resistance’. Additionally, the group renewed its permanent demands: an end to Israeli land, air, and sea operations; a complete withdrawal from all Lebanese territories; the deployment of the Lebanese Army south of the Litani River; the release of prisoners; the return of residents; and large-scale reconstruction of combat zones. Hezbollah claims that conducting direct negotiations with Israel amounts to the Lebanese government surrendering to external pressures and US-Israeli interests, constituting a betrayal of the Lebanese people by their own government.”
Structural Limits of the Lebanese Army
The report indicates that “the American and broader international approach relies primarily on attempts to strengthen Lebanese state institutions through economic investments, training programs, and support for the Lebanese Army, operating under the assumption that empowering the state will, in the long term, reduce Hezbollah’s influence.”
However, it argues that “past experiences demonstrate that the fundamental issue does not lie solely in the capabilities of the Lebanese Army, but primarily in its lack of will to use force against Hezbollah. The fear of triggering internal conflict or even a civil war, combined with the sectarian composition of the Lebanese Army—where Shiites constitute nearly half of its soldiers and officers, many of whom share family ties with Hezbollah members—creates deep structural constraints. These ties, alongside the direct and indirect coordination between elements within the military and Hezbollah, and the conciliation policy pursued by Army Commander Rudolf Heikal, form barriers that cannot be dismantled simply by expanding budgets or supplying advanced equipment.”
“In reality, while the international community continues to view the Lebanese Army as a potential alternative to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the army currently operates in coordination with Hezbollah, works to contain it, or turns a blind eye to its activities. Furthermore, the Lebanese Army assists Hezbollah in concealing its weapons stockpiles and military footprint in southern Lebanon.”
Israel’s Operational Outlook
The report concludes that “while Israel has a clear interest in maintaining a diplomatic channel with the Lebanese government for coordination and international legitimacy, any political agreement signed with Beirut at this stage should not be viewed as a mechanism capable of fundamentally altering the security reality.”
“Even if an agreement is signed between Israel and Lebanon, the likelihood of it leading to the actual disarmament of Hezbollah, a significant reduction of its influence, or long-term security for the residents of northern Israel remains extremely low, if not entirely non-existent. As long as Hezbollah continues to operate as a state within a state—both militarily and through the civil services it provides to its popular base—no real change will manifest in Lebanon, and any agreement with Israel will remain mere ink on paper.”
“Therefore, the IDF must be granted full operational freedom against Hezbollah in Lebanon to continue the strategy of systematically weakening the organization. This includes launching continuous strikes against Hezbollah’s core centers of power: its leadership, command structures, production infrastructure, smuggling routes, weapons stockpiles, force-building capabilities, and civilian networks.”
The report warns: “Every day that passes under a ceasefire in Beirut and the Beqaa is another day for Hezbollah to grow stronger. Its financial operations, weapons manufacturing and smuggling, personnel training, and the renewal of operational plans against Israel continue uninterrupted. In practice, this status quo prolongs the conflict in southern Lebanon, enabling Hezbollah to prepare for a protracted, yet calculated, confrontation with Israel.”

To read this article in Arabic (Click Here)