Amos Hochstein is still working on a solution to secure a ceasefire. However, this proposal is not ideal for Lebanon, as it does not resolve the country's fundamental issues. It primarily involves a Hezbollah withdrawal north of the Litani River, with the risk that it will strengthen its presence elsewhere in the country.

On a broader scale, I doubt that negotiations will reach a conclusion before January 20. However, I observed that the new administration is determined to find a resolution to the conflicts in Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian arena. There is a clear commitment to achieving long-term peace.

Let’s address the second point: Hezbollah's disarmament. Should this be part of an Israeli-Iranian negotiation or an internal Lebanese dialogue?

Hezbollah has refused to engage with us on issues related to sovereignty and militia disarmament for thirty years. So, the idea that this can now be resolved internally doesn’t seem very convincing. Hezbollah is an Iranian project, equipped with Iranian arms, so the international community must necessarily play a role in addressing this issue.

Should this be a condition for the ceasefire?

At the moment, it is not. However, after everything that has happened, many Lebanese are resolute in their refusal to live alongside an armed militia in the future. Building a state governed by the rule of law is impossible with the continued presence of armed militias, regardless of who they are.

The question of Hezbollah as an Iranian instrument at Israel's border must be handled through the international community. Following that, it will be our responsibility as Lebanese to create and implement a roadmap that ensures a smooth transition, allowing us to build a viable state. This is the proposal I presented during my tour.

 

Hezbollah sees its weapons as its reason for being. If it refuses to disarm, does that mean endless war?

If Hezbollah’s regional role is contained and it becomes a militia with light weapons within Lebanon, coexistence with it remains impossible. At that point, we would need to sit down, engage in dialogue, and reconsider the possibility of separation. But we’re not at that stage yet. In any case, there can be no return to the pre-October 7 status quo.

This leads us to the third point: the inclusion of the Shiite community. How can this be achieved? Through constitutional reforms?

To address this, early parliamentary elections would be essential once the war ends, allowing all Lebanese, including the Shiite community, to re-elect their representatives. Alternatively, implementing the Taif Agreement could be a starting point, especially with respect to decentralization, establishing a Senate, and disarming militias. Additionally, we need to correct gaps in the agreement, such as the absence of a maximum timeframe for forming a government after the appointment of a Prime Minister.

What about deconfessionalization?

First, the system needs to function. These measures should eventually lead to true citizenship, and ultimately, to the deconfessionalization of the state. But must start by getting on track. After that, we have many proposals to offer, but now is not the time to discuss them.

That still doesn’t address the issue of Shiite inclusion...

We’ll need to consider constitutional reforms to address the concerns of this community. For example, the fact that the Shiite duo effectively holds a monopoly over the Ministry of Finance, securing the third signature that grants them control over the executive, is not sustainable in the long run. We will need to offer real compensation to resolve this issue. But it’s still too early to go into the details.

Have you started discussing this with House Speaker Nabih Berri?

No, not yet. It’s important that no one in the country feels marginalized. We need to address the concerns of Christians, Sunnis, Shiites, Druze, and also all the Lebanese who don’t want to exist through the lens of their communities. It all starts with the principle of equality among citizens. Nothing can be achieved while an armed militia distorts the entire system.

Is this vision for the post-war future shared within the political class today?

Unfortunately, the political class isn’t thinking about this. There are egos and personal ambitions, and the presidency has become an obsession for many. So, everyone is waiting for the outcome of the war to see what the new power balances will be. I believe this isn’t how we will build a country or resolve the tensions between the Lebanese. True reconciliation has never taken place since the Civil War, and it must happen today. This requires open and honest dialogue from all parties. Everyone needs to speak openly about their feelings, and mutual recognition must take place.