Israel’s Offer to Lebanon: Land for Hezbollah’s Disarmament

Months ago, I argued that Israel had reformulated the traditional Arab peace proposal. The old formula of “land for peace” held that Israel would cede territory in exchange for Arab recognition and normalized ties. Israel has flipped the formula to “peace for land.” The Arabs would first make peace and disarm militias such as Hamas and Hezbollah, with Israeli territorial concessions to follow.

The Palestinians chose to shoot themselves in the foot. They refused to surrender Hamas’s weapons and paid the price, losing roughly half of the Gaza Strip. Lebanon now appears headed down the same path, preserving Hezbollah’s arsenal at the cost of territory Israel is transforming into a depopulated security zone.

Yet before Lebanon accepts the amputation of part of its territory, Iran and Hezbollah believe they can salvage both the militia’s arsenal and land. Although Israel adhered to the ceasefire outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Iran and the U.S., Hezbollah never stopped fighting. It maintained that it had the right to “resist” until Israel fully withdrew.

It should be noted that the MoU does not stipulate an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, only a ceasefire. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf called his Lebanese counterpart, Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, to clarify that any potential Israeli withdrawal would be negotiated separately as part of a final Iran-U.S. agreement.

Tehran crafted the MoU as an open-ended arrangement. Because it included both the unfreezing of Iranian assets and the lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran’s banking, shipping, and insurance sectors—precisely as in Barack Obama’s JCPOA—Tehran could remain comfortable even if a “final agreement” never materialized. That is why one of the memo’s 14 provisions allows the 60-day negotiating period to be renewed indefinitely.

However, with Iran now divided among rival factions, a hardline faction appears unwilling to accept Israeli military control in Lebanon. This faction pressured Hezbollah to continue attacks on Israel and provoke military retaliation, effectively merging the ceasefire and withdrawal into a single demand. Hezbollah, meanwhile, cannot tolerate an indefinite MoU. It would mean the group stops shooting while Israel retains control of Lebanese territory. 

Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors therefore insisted that the MoU be reinterpreted so that “ceasefire” automatically includes full Israeli withdrawal. Sensing Washington’s unprecedented flexibility, Tehran calculated that escalation would succeed. It therefore said it was closing the Strait of Hormuz unless the U.S. compelled Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

Tehran’s urgency only increased when Lebanon’s elected government continued its own independent, direct negotiating channel with Israel. This U.S.-mediated channel offers a genuine alternative, with Israeli withdrawal conditioned on Hezbollah’s disarmament. Disbanding Hezbollah’s military apparatus has been official Lebanese government policy since before Israel’s incursion, which was triggered by the militia’s resumption of war against Israel on March 2.

In short, the interests of Lebanon and Israel align on the core issue of disarming Hezbollah. As the two sides hold another round of talks in Washington this week, Jerusalem has signaled its willingness to commit to a full withdrawal once Hezbollah surrenders its weapons over to the Lebanese state.

Through peaceful negotiations with Israel, the Lebanese government can therefore achieve two goals in one stroke: disarm Hezbollah and secure an Israeli withdrawal. Hezbollah, by contrast, wants the opposite—retaining its arms while forcing Israel out. Iran and Hezbollah do not seek settlements through peace with Israel, but only through war, ceasefires, and renewed conflict.

The irony is unmistakable. Much of the world, ever eager to engage in blood libel against Israel, believes Hezbollah’s claims and condemns Israel for war and occupation. The reality is the opposite: Israel seeks peace and withdrawal, while Hezbollah seeks war to compel an unconditional Israeli pullout, without peace.

Hezbollah’s intransigence echoes the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) playbook in 1970, when it refused Jordan’s demand to disarm. Fighting broke out, Arab capitals rushed to back the PLO, and Syria’s Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad massed troops on Jordan’s border. Israel’s Prime Minister Golda Meir sent Assad a clear warning: cross the border and lose your army. The Arab instigators backed down. Jordan prevailed, disarmed the militias, and expelled them. The PLO relocated to Lebanon, where it undermined the country’s sovereignty.

Today, as Israel enables Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, Iran and parts of the Arab world are conspiring against the Lebanese government and siding with the militia. Iran has gained additional leverage by strong-arming Washington through its new weapon: threatening to disrupt navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

The question now facing Washington is whether it will restrain Israel and the Lebanese government, allowing Hezbollah to preserve its illegal militia and setting the stage for future war. Or will the U.S. withstand Iranian pressure and support Beirut in restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty by dismantling Hezbollah?

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a columnist focusing on Lebanon and broader Arab affairs.