After the Truce, Lebanon Looks to the Next Step Toward an Agreement
4/17/2026 4:12:26 PM
A historic day was recorded in Lebanon yesterday, not only because of the conclusion of a ten-day ceasefire agreement with Israel, but also because Lebanon was present in the political decision-making process. A phone call from U.S. President Donald Trump to President Joseph Aoun, and the announcement of a forthcoming invitation to the White House for both Aoun and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, indicate that the Lebanese presidency is no longer merely a recipient of the outcomes of mediation efforts, but has become part of shaping the political process.
Following an understanding brokered by the United States, the ten-day truce came into effect last night. The U.S. State Department linked the ceasefire to subsequent negotiations on long-term security arrangements and land border demarcation, with a provision allowing for extension if both sides agree.
Despite the prevailing atmosphere of optimism, many Lebanese remain concerned about the possibility of a renewed war, as happened after the October 27 agreement, raising fears that the country could again be drawn into conflict. The question remains whether there are now serious indicators that this time matters will be definitively resolved.
MP Fadi Karam of the Lebanese Forces parliamentary bloc told Al-Markazia that Lebanon is facing a real opportunity, not only for a truce but for a genuine security agreement. However, he warned that the risk of renewed escalation remains significant. He said Hezbollah had, from the very first moment of the truce, effectively undermined it, continuing what he described as “false claims of victory,” which could bring further war and destruction to Lebanon. According to him, the state must now make a decisive choice, as it can no longer justify inaction under the pretext of avoiding internal conflict. He added that leaving Lebanon exposed in this way amounts to negligence and irresponsibility, and called on the authorities, security forces, and judiciary to act immediately to prevent any new war.
Regarding guarantees obtained by Lebanon, Karam said the arrangement is a security understanding in which Israel would obtain security assurances while withdrawing from Lebanese territory under the agreement, and attacks would cease. He argued that if Lebanon stops being used as a platform for others, Israel would not strike again and negotiations would continue.
Asked whether Israel acted under U.S. pressure or due to regional calculations involving Iran, Karam said the deal is a security settlement unrelated to Iran’s direct involvement in Lebanon’s issues. However, he noted that if Iran complies with U.S. demands, support for Hezbollah would be affected, which he said would be in Lebanon’s interest. He added that Israel’s core objective is to secure its northern border and return displaced residents, while internal Israeli debate continues between those favoring continued military action and those supporting a negotiated security arrangement with Lebanon.
On whether a new agreement resembling a revised and expanded version of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 is emerging, Karam said he has no information but expects a new security deal in which the disarmament of Hezbollah would be a central component.
On normalization with Israel, he said such matters must be discussed within Lebanese state institutions and parliament, not in the streets, stressing that no party is currently ready for such a step. He added that this issue will evolve according to circumstances and national interest, but insisted that the priority is to restrict Hezbollah’s weapons and prevent Lebanon from being used as a battleground for external conflicts, ultimately strengthening the authority of the state.
Following an understanding brokered by the United States, the ten-day truce came into effect last night. The U.S. State Department linked the ceasefire to subsequent negotiations on long-term security arrangements and land border demarcation, with a provision allowing for extension if both sides agree.
Despite the prevailing atmosphere of optimism, many Lebanese remain concerned about the possibility of a renewed war, as happened after the October 27 agreement, raising fears that the country could again be drawn into conflict. The question remains whether there are now serious indicators that this time matters will be definitively resolved.
MP Fadi Karam of the Lebanese Forces parliamentary bloc told Al-Markazia that Lebanon is facing a real opportunity, not only for a truce but for a genuine security agreement. However, he warned that the risk of renewed escalation remains significant. He said Hezbollah had, from the very first moment of the truce, effectively undermined it, continuing what he described as “false claims of victory,” which could bring further war and destruction to Lebanon. According to him, the state must now make a decisive choice, as it can no longer justify inaction under the pretext of avoiding internal conflict. He added that leaving Lebanon exposed in this way amounts to negligence and irresponsibility, and called on the authorities, security forces, and judiciary to act immediately to prevent any new war.
Regarding guarantees obtained by Lebanon, Karam said the arrangement is a security understanding in which Israel would obtain security assurances while withdrawing from Lebanese territory under the agreement, and attacks would cease. He argued that if Lebanon stops being used as a platform for others, Israel would not strike again and negotiations would continue.
Asked whether Israel acted under U.S. pressure or due to regional calculations involving Iran, Karam said the deal is a security settlement unrelated to Iran’s direct involvement in Lebanon’s issues. However, he noted that if Iran complies with U.S. demands, support for Hezbollah would be affected, which he said would be in Lebanon’s interest. He added that Israel’s core objective is to secure its northern border and return displaced residents, while internal Israeli debate continues between those favoring continued military action and those supporting a negotiated security arrangement with Lebanon.
On whether a new agreement resembling a revised and expanded version of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 is emerging, Karam said he has no information but expects a new security deal in which the disarmament of Hezbollah would be a central component.
On normalization with Israel, he said such matters must be discussed within Lebanese state institutions and parliament, not in the streets, stressing that no party is currently ready for such a step. He added that this issue will evolve according to circumstances and national interest, but insisted that the priority is to restrict Hezbollah’s weapons and prevent Lebanon from being used as a battleground for external conflicts, ultimately strengthening the authority of the state.