A ceasefire is now officially in place between Lebanon and Israel, and a second round of direct talks is reportedly due to take place between the two countries in Washington tomorrow. The U.S. mediation is likely motivated by a desire to secure an agreement- separate from the American negotiations track with Iran- that will normalise relations between Israel and Lebanon. Undoubtedly there are some in Lebanon (probably a small minority) who would welcome such developments alongside the final disarmament of Hezbollah, but others take a more nuanced view in which they see negotiations with Israel not as a track towards normalisation but rather a bitter necessity to spare Lebanon further destruction, just as they deem Hezbollah’s disarmament a necessity, not as an act of surrender to Israel but to give Lebanon a chance at stability.
The U.S. mediation is likely motivated by a desire to secure an agreement—separate from the American negotiations track with Iran—that will normalise relations between Israel and Lebanon.
The following interview below was conducted yesterday with Bassam Ghanum, a writer and political analyst for the site al-Aman that is linked to Lebanon’s Islamic Group (the Lebanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood), though I emphasise that Ghanum is speaking to me in his own capacity and whatever views he expresses here do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Islamic Group.
It is notable, however, that whereas the Islamic Group’s armed wing- Quwat al-Fajr- was a participant in the south Lebanon ‘support front’ for Gaza as a junior partner of Hezbollah in 2023-2024, it does not appear to have participated in the fighting this time between Hezbollah and Israel. This is so despite the praise that the Islamic Group’s southern branch recently offered for the ‘resistance’ and its ‘legendary steadfastness’ while calling for a ‘national defence strategy’ that combines the role of the ‘resistance forces in the field’ with the ‘role of state institutions.’
Below is the interview with Bassam.
Q: How do you assess the war that took place between Hezbollah and Israel recently? What did you think of Hezbollah’s opening of a support front for Iran against Israel? Did the war result in big losses for Hezbollah? Now the Israelis are occupying a number of villages in south Lebanon: is Lebanon compelled to negotiate with Israel as we now see in Washington?
A: The recent war that began in Lebanon on 2 March was by Hezbollah’s decision in response to Iranian pressure and in defence of Iran and not in defence of Lebanon. This is the truth everyone knows: even Hezbollah’s leaders in Lebanon affirmed this talk, including Hezbollah’s secretary general Shaykh Naim Qasim and the head of the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc, the MP Muhammad Ra‘ad and many others said this thing. But with the escalation of popular opposition to this talking point and dragging Lebanon into a direct, destructive war with the Zionist enemy, they said this war is in defence of Lebanon. And this war- very regrettably- has resulted in big losses on all levels, not only in south Lebanon and Dahiya [south Beirut], but also in all of Lebanon. All of Lebanon is paying the price for this war and the price for this adventure that Hezbollah got Lebanon into, in defence of Iran and in protection of Iranian interests.
All of Lebanon is paying the price for this war and the price for this adventure that Hezbollah got Lebanon into, in defence of Iran and in protection of Iranian interests.
The situation in Lebanon now after a ceasefire was reached is very difficult. The Israeli enemy is occupying 55 villages and today Avichay Adraee- the spokesman for the Israeli enemy army- issued a statement in which he warned the people of these villages by name- he named each village by name- and told them not to come back to these villages, even though these villages have been levelled to the ground and so it is impossible to return to them. Therefore it can be said that this war was destructive foremost for the people of the south, the people of Dahiya and the people of Lebanon as a whole. The Lebanese people have borne the consequences of displacement, economic crises and political crises. And these ramifications of the war will have a negative impact on the Lebanese outside Lebanon because of the affiliation or support of some of them for Hezbollah.
From another angle, Lebanon has been forced for the first time as a result of this war to enter into direct negotiations with the Zionist enemy in order to stop the war, and today President Joseph Aoun made clear that Lebanon is waging a diplomatic war without bloodshed in order to protect Lebanon and Lebanese interests, and that negotiations are normally conducted between adversaries, and that the aim of the negotiations is not neglect or surrender, but rather protecting Lebanon and the Lebanese. Therefore the ongoing dispute between the Lebanese- especially between Hezbollah, the Amal Movement and the rest of Lebanon- over the issue of negotiation will negatively impact the general political situation in Lebanon, and the one who bears responsibility for this dispute and destruction is the one who got Lebanon into a war that had nothing pretty or good about it.
Q: Are you with the idea of disarming Hezbollah? As it appears, most Lebanese except the Shia community are in favour of disarming Hezbollah?
A: As for disarming Hezbollah, the Lebanese government made a decision on this issue and the issue is not a matter of personal opinion, but rather the Lebanese government- in which all the main political forces are represented, including Hezbollah and the Amal Movement- took the decision to disarm Hezbollah, and during recent days, around two weeks ago, the government took a decision to restriction weapons within Beirut, in fear of the expansion of security chaos to the Lebanese capital Beirut. The issue of disarming Hezbollah is not new, but rather one that would periodically come up when conflict with the Zionist enemy arose, though the political circumstances differed. Political circumstances now are different. There is Arab and international pressure on Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, because Hezbollah’s retention of its weapons will block Arab and international aid to Lebanon and will leave Lebanon isolated.
The issue of disarming Hezbollah in Lebanon is directly connected with stability in Lebanon.
Therefore, there was a clear decision by the Lebanese government agreed to by the parties participating in the government with the exception of Hezbollah’s ministers who are only two in number (no more or less), whereas the rest the ministers- including the Amal Movement’s ministers led by the head of the parliament Nabih Berri- agreed to disarming Hezbollah. But after the war began and revealed that Hezbollah still retains its great military capabilities, this issue has become more pressing- which has prompted the Lebanese government to enter into direct negotiations with the Zionist enemy in order to protect Lebanon and the Lebanese. The issue of disarming Hezbollah in Lebanon is directly connected with stability in Lebanon. Thus, if no internal and external political resolution is achieved regarding Hezbollah’s weapons, Lebanon will continue to greatly suffer at all levels, especially the political and economic and even the security levels, given the security chaos Lebanon is going through and which can only be resolved by confining weapons in the hands of the state.
Q: In your view is the Lebanese government trying to normalise relations with Israel? What’s your position on that? Is it possible to reach a security agreement to secure Israeli forces’ withdrawal from Lebanon? Can relations be normalised in the future with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel?
A: The Lebanese government does not want to normalise relations with the Zionist enemy, as affirmed by the republic’s president Joseph Aoun and the head of government Nawaf Salam. Rather, the Lebanese government considers the negotiations to be a diplomatic war without bloodshed in order to protect Lebanon and the Lebanese: the Lebanese government is trying to achieve through political means what cannot be achieved through military means. Therefore the Lebanese government and most of the political class in Lebanon agreed to this project of negotiating with the Zionist enemy, but the dispute is about the idea or rather the method. The republic’s president Joseph Aoun, the head of government and all the ministers with the exception of the Shia ministers are in favour of direct negotiations with the Zionist enemy, whereas the head of parliament Nabih Berri is in favour of indirect negotiations with the Zionist enemy to secure Israel’s withdrawal, the return of the displaced, and the ceasefire. As for Hezbollah, it absolutely rejects negotiations because of its own considerations on all political levels.
The Lebanese government considers the negotiations to be a diplomatic war without bloodshed in order to protect Lebanon and the Lebanese.
But the reality on the ground says the opposite. Lebanon is in big trouble and this war that took place in the south and in which Lebanon got involved in defence of Iran and not in defence of Lebanese territory has prompted the Lebanese government to take up this difficult choice, but as President Joseph Aoun said, the government is conducting negotiations not for normalisation but to protect Lebanon and the Lebanese, not for surrender but to return to a state of stability in Lebanon. And let us remember that Lebanon previously managed to define maritime boundaries with the Zionist enemy—something that was done with the agreement, blessing or rather direct participation of the head of government and head of parliament Nabih Berri. Therefore, there should be no objection to these negotiations that are being conducted by the Lebanese government with the oversight of President Joseph Aoun in order to come to a solution that allows for defining land boundaries with the Zionist enemy without us having to normalise relations, because normalising relations with the Zionist enemy is a complicated matter in which there is no consensus about it among the various groups of Lebanese.
Published originally on April 22, 2026.
