The ceasefire monitoring committee overseeing the Lebanon-Israel front is facing a real operational crisis, as Lebanon presses for an urgent resumption of negotiations, warning that there is no alternative in place. 

Well-informed official sources following the work of the so-called "mechanism" told Al-Modon that the committee’s work is increasingly in jeopardy due to deliberate delays in convening meetings, internal structural problems within the mechanism itself, regional and international complications, and widening gaps between Lebanese and Israeli priorities.

A new round of talks had been scheduled for December 14, but it never took place. Although Lebanon has not been officially notified that the session was canceled, the sources said there is a strong feeling that the delay was intentional, stalling momentum and undermining confidence in the process.

They added that the postponement is linked to several overlapping factors, including the structure of the mechanism, the ceasefire agreement, and evolving regional and international developments.

Despite the delays, Lebanon remains committed to the framework and is urging the other parties to convene the next session as soon as possible. The Lebanese presidency, government, army, and negotiating delegation are all ready to resume talks, the sources said, both in terms of political proposals and on-the-ground negotiations conducted by the army.

“If the mechanism collapses, there will be no alternative,” the sources said. “At that point, Lebanon would be facing the unknown. That is why we are holding on to the mechanism. The Lebanese state is holding on to this committee, and negotiations must resume quickly.”

The sources said Lebanese officials increasingly view the mechanism as a fragile refuge in a hostile environment. “It is like a shelter in a forest full of wild beasts,” they said, acknowledging that the framework is far from ideal but remains the only channel available.

They said the Lebanese delegation raised two core principles during negotiation rounds held on December 3 and 19 in Naqoura: the return of displaced residents to their land and homes as a non-negotiable constant in the talks, and the linking of any economic negotiations to reconstruction once people are back in their villages.

“These two points were the subject of intensive discussions with the U.S. side and appear to have gained some degree of acceptance,” the sources said, adding that a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy after the second round indicated that Lebanese demands had become central to U.S.-Israeli negotiations as well.

During the second round, and building on what they described as solid performance by the Lebanese Army, the Lebanese delegation insisted that the army’s achievements be reflected in the official statement, including its success in establishing effective control on the ground in the area south of the Litani River.

The delegation also pushed for that achievement to be announced by consensus within the mechanism and with the approval of all participants. Israel, however, later chose to have its prime minister issue a unilateral statement on January 8 that carried both positive and negative elements; a move the sources said undercut coordinated progress inside the framework.

They pointed to public remarks made by Israel’s ambassador to Washington in an interview on December 5, describing the interview as particularly significant because it came from Israel’s top diplomat in the U.S. and carried a direct message to Lebanon and the Lebanese people.

The sources said Israel’s approach remains security-focused and tied to its pursuit of its own security, describing it as a harsh position that clashes with Lebanon’s insistence on humanitarian and economic priorities.

They added that the economic track is on the table for all parties but cautioned against illusions about Washington’s role. “America is an ally of Israel,” they said. “But there is a glimmer of light, and we are trying to enter through it.”

As for proposals to raise the level of representation within the mechanism, the sources said such a move may be possible but has not been formally put to Lebanon.

They also recalled the experience following the Madrid Conference, when Lebanon’s foreign minister took part in negotiations in the United States, joined by the secretary-general of the Foreign Ministry and a group of ambassadors. Twelve negotiation rounds were held in Washington at the time.

One of Lebanon’s core conditions, the sources stressed, remains the return of residents to the south, even if Lebanon is threatened with worse consequences.

“This is a principle we will not abandon,” they said. “We will take it to the end. The most important thing is to impose the return of people to their villages.”