Lebanon would pursue indirect talks with Israel only after the Israeli military stops hostilities, according to Naim Qassem, the secretary-general of Hezbollah. In a public address, Qassem reiterated this conditional stance, stressing that diplomatic engagement would only begin once Israel halts its aggression. He indicated that if those terms are met, negotiations on behalf of Hezbollah could be conducted by Nebih Berri, the Speaker of Lebanon’s Parliament, signaling a channel through established national leadership rather than a separate militant delegation. This position situates Hezbollah’s approach within Lebanon’s broader political framework, where parliamentary bodies and government coalitions often mediate in regional crises. The claim underscores the group’s insistence on a credible pause in fighting before any dialogue can progress, a prerequisite that shapes how both sides view potential concessions and security guarantees. The willingness to employ a parliamentary mediator also reflects Hezbollah’s preference for formalized avenues that reduce ambiguity and help manage domestic political sensitivities in Lebanon. The stance signals that any future talks would likely revolve around ceasefire terms, prisoner exchanges, and broader regional security arrangements rather than a swift, one-sided capitulation. The condition also places emphasis on maintaining a measure of sovereignty for Lebanon, presenting indirect negotiations as a pathway to de-escalation while preserving the Lebanese state’s institutional channels.
Qassem framed the condition in a televised speech, asserting that indirect negotiations would begin only when Israel ends its aggression against Palestinian and Lebanese territories. The broadcaster’s audience was reminded that any dialogue would be contingent on a demonstrable halt to operations that Hezbollah labels as escalatory, making the prospect of talks highly conditional and time-bound. The message conveyed a clear arithmetic: if the enemy stops, dialogue can begin; if not, the line remains closed. This framing aligns with Hezbollah’s longstanding strategy of linking diplomacy to security on the ground and calibrating threats to shape international responses. The remarks also imply a broader narrative intended to rally supporters by framing the conflict as a struggle against continued aggression that demands a political as well as military response. The clarity of condition and the prospect of a mediator underscores the expectation that negotiations would not proceed without a credible commitment from Israel.
According to Qassem, should Israel meet the condition, Hezbollah would entrust the talks to Nebih Berri, who chairs Lebanon’s Parliament. Berri’s role would likely offer a familiar, domestically legitimate channel for diplomacy, leveraging his long-standing position in Lebanese politics and his ties to both state institutions and the movement’s leadership. This arrangement would frame indirect negotiations as a demand-led process rather than a purely militant negotiation, appealing to international observers who emphasize formal diplomatic processes and conflict resolution. The possibility of Berri assuming the negotiating mantle signals how Lebanon might try to balance regional demands with internal political realities, including sectarian considerations and the need to maintain fragile stability inside Lebanon. The prospect of a credible, parliamentary-driven dialogue could help create a structure that international partners might recognize in any potential ceasefire agreement.
On November 4, Israel’s new defense minister, Israel Katz, articulated a set of core war aims that would guide the country’s actions in the current conflict, including the return of hostages, the defeat of Hamas, and the containment of Hezbollah in Lebanon along with broader efforts to manage Iran’s regional influence. Katz’s remarks framed the forthcoming period as a continuation of a multi-front effort designed to restore security for Israeli citizens and to respond to perceived threats from militant groups and their patrons. The minister pledged to pursue westward and regional objectives with determination, signaling a persistent, long-haul campaign rather than a quick, decisive end to hostilities. The comments also reflect a belief that regional stabilization would require a robust strategy that addresses both immediate tactical goals and longer-term strategic aims linked to Iran and its allied actors.
Earlier, Kasım, in his first address after taking office, promised victory for his supporters over Israel, presenting a decisive political mandate at a time of heightened regional tension. The Hezbollah leader described the unfolding struggle as a major regional project, a war that would test leadership and resilience across borders. He argued that the confrontation would demonstrate that Western values are just slogans in the face of tough realities on the ground. The remarks appear to be aimed at consolidating support within his base while signaling that the arena of conflict has shifted from mere deterrence to active, sustained confrontation. The rhetoric also underscores how the leadership views the conflict within a broader contest for influence that transcends national boundaries, inviting supporters to read it as a fight for regional prominence.
Finally, the report notes that Israel had faced threats in the recent period, while Hezbollah’s leadership is seen as undergoing changes, with reports describing the new leader as having the shortest tenure in office. The political and military dynamic remains unsettled, with both sides maneuvering for position as international actors urge restraint. Observers warn that any misstep could widen the conflict or draw in additional regional players, complicating efforts to establish a sustainable ceasefire. The ongoing debate over leadership roles, legitimacy, and the proper channels for dialogue indicates that diplomacy will be as fragile as the security situation is volatile.