Lebanon is insisting on clear progress on three key issues before returning to the negotiating table with Israel, according to Lebanese sources familiar with the talks, following the conclusion of the seventh round of direct negotiations between the two countries in Rome.

The Lebanese demands include a full ceasefire across Lebanese territory, the establishment of a new pilot zone encompassing the southern town of Bint Jbeil and the Khiyam area, and an end to Israeli operations involving the demolition of homes and the leveling of residential neighborhoods, orchards and agricultural land in southern Lebanon, the sources told Erem News.

A source close to the White House said that Lebanon is insisting exclusively on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted in 2006, and rejects any new language that could dilute the resolution's international authority or impose unilateral obligations without equivalent guarantees.

Beirut is also demanding the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all positions affecting Lebanon's internationally recognized borders, based on the 1923 boundary and the 1949 Armistice Agreement. The demand includes the 13 disputed points, the northern part of the village of Ghajar, and the Shebaa Farms and Kfarshuba Hills.

Lebanon categorically rejects any provision that would grant Israel "freedom of military movement" or allow it to conduct independent air or maritime surveillance over Lebanese territory and airspace. Beirut considers such arrangements tantamount to entrenching occupation and undermining Lebanese sovereignty.

Ahmed Al-Anani, an international relations expert, said four main issues are preventing the two sides from reaching an understanding, reflecting the clash between Beirut's sovereignty concerns and Israel's immediate security demands.

The first is the mechanism for guarantees and direct response. Israel is seeking the right to intervene militarily if it detects a threat or signs of renewed rearmament, while Lebanon insists that any violations be addressed by the Lebanese army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL. Any direct Israeli intervention, Beirut argues, would constitute an infringement of Lebanese sovereignty.

The second concerns the monitoring and oversight mechanism. Washington favors a framework involving Western countries, with Israeli participation and a direct presence on the ground. Beirut, meanwhile, wants to retain the existing tripartite mechanism involving Lebanon, Israel and UNIFIL under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council.

The third issue is the scale of the security deployment and monitoring arrangements in southern Lebanon. The fourth concerns the nature of the guarantees that could be offered to Israel in return for its withdrawal and an end to military operations.

Al-Anani said U.S. mediators are seeking diplomatic formulations that would reassure Israel that military restrictions south of the Litani River will be strictly enforced while designing monitoring arrangements that would not openly violate Lebanese sovereignty.

At the same time, Washington is focusing on strengthening the Lebanese army through international logistical and financial assistance, expanding its deployment and improving its operational capabilities so that it becomes the principal security force controlling the ground in southern Lebanon.

The approach is intended to address one of Israel's central demands — preventing organized military activity south of the Litani — without giving Israel an open-ended mandate to operate inside Lebanese territory, Al-Anani said.

Washington is also using political and operational leverage to prevent the dispute between Lebanon and Israel from escalating into a broader confrontation, according to the sources. The United States is pressing both sides to make reciprocal concessions while seeking to preserve what the administration considers essential parameters for regional stability.

The U.S. mediation effort is therefore aimed at striking a balance between Israel's demand for enforceable security guarantees and Lebanon's insistence that its sovereignty be respected and that any new arrangements remain anchored in international legitimacy.

Lebanon's conditions are not intended to derail negotiations, according to the sources, but rather to establish clear boundaries for what Beirut considers an acceptable framework for any future agreement.

By insisting on Resolution 1701 and U.N. legitimacy, Lebanon is also giving Washington a legal framework that could be used to pressure Israel into accepting monitoring arrangements led by the Lebanese army and UNIFIL, rather than providing Israel with cover for measures that could be interpreted as legitimizing military operations inside Lebanon.