Lebanon has finalized its official response to the paper submitted by U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack, opting for what officials described as a “balanced” approach that seeks to reconcile internal political dynamics with mounting external pressure to disarm Hezbollah.

According to senior Lebanese officials cited by Al-Modon, the response addresses the majority of points raised in the U.S. proposal and offers detailed answers on issues such as reforms, implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and the cessation of hostilities. However, it stops short of specifying a timeline or mechanism for the disarmament of Hezbollah, a key point of contention.

“The response reflects Lebanon’s national interest and also considers Hezbollah’s concerns and observations,” said Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. “It aims to strike a necessary balance between preserving internal stability and responding to foreign demands.”

Despite the effort to formulate a unified stance, Lebanese officials privately acknowledge that Washington is unlikely to view the response as satisfactory. U.S. and Israeli officials had been pressing for a more explicit commitment to disarm Hezbollah and to outline clear steps for implementing such a process.

Lebanese leaders are reportedly in contact with American and French officials, while some have dispatched envoys abroad in an attempt to ease international concerns.

According to details obtained by Al-Modon, the Lebanese response includes the following main points:

• Commitment to UN Resolution 1701: Lebanon reaffirmed its adherence to the cessation of hostilities based on the 2006 resolution.

• Support for UNIFIL and the Army: The document calls for the renewal of the UNIFIL mandate and increased international support—logistical and financial—for the Lebanese Armed Forces, enabling them to expand their deployment south of the Litani River.

• Dismantling of Hezbollah Infrastructure South of Litani: Lebanon highlighted steps taken to dismantle Hezbollah’s military structures south of the Litani, framing it as part of the effort to strengthen state authority and enforce a weapons-free zone outside state control. However, the response does not address the status of Hezbollah’s arms north of the river and avoids setting any timeline.

• Border Disputes and Prisoners: Lebanon demands Israel’s withdrawal from five contested border points, including the Shebaa Farms and Kfarshuba Hills. It also calls for the return of Lebanese detainees held by Israel and clarity regarding the fate of those who are missing.

• Adherence to the Taif Accord: The response reiterates Lebanon’s commitment to the 1989 Taif Agreement as a framework for national reconciliation and governance.

• Activation of Monitoring Mechanism: Lebanon supports the reactivation of the ceasefire monitoring mechanism and calls on the U.S. to exert pressure on Israel to halt its repeated violations and uphold the cessation of hostilities.

• Syrian Refugees and Border Security: The paper urges Arab involvement in managing the Lebanese-Syrian relationship to ensure the safe and dignified return of Syrian refugees. It also stresses the importance of securing Lebanon’s border with Syria.

• Commitment to Sovereignty and Reforms: The response affirms Lebanon’s commitment to the presidential oath and the ministerial policy statement, particularly regarding sovereignty, reform, and the authority of state institutions.

• Financial and Economic Reform: It pledges to continue fiscal and economic reforms aimed at restoring international confidence in Lebanon and reintegrating the country into the global financial system.

• Reconstruction and Palestinian Arms: The document highlights the importance of launching reconstruction efforts and facilitating Lebanon’s international obligations. It also calls for placing the issue of Palestinian weapons, both inside and outside refugee camps, on the table, in line with the Taif Accord and Resolution 1701.

While the response highlights efforts to dismantle Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon, it avoids directly addressing the group’s arsenal in other regions or proposing a concrete disarmament process. Sources say this omission is a key reason behind continued U.S. dissatisfaction, with efforts to amend or clarify the document still underway.