On April 22, 2026, the second round of Lebanese-Israeli contacts at the ambassadorial level took place in Washington, after which US President Donald Trump announced the extension of the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon for another three weeks. This is not just a technical pause at the border, but an attempt by the US to shift the conflict from a military logic to a diplomatic one — while ‘Hezbollah’ remains the main obstacle to any sustainable agreement.
For Israel, this story is directly related to the safety of northern residents, the return of evacuated communities, and the question of who really controls southern Lebanon: the state of Lebanon or an armed structure linked to Iran.
What happened in Washington
The talks took place at the White House. Israel was represented by Ambassador to the US Yehiel Leiter, Lebanon by Ambassador Nada Hamade Mouawad. According to international media reports, Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other representatives of the American administration participated in the process.
After the meeting, Trump announced that the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon would be extended for three weeks. He also stated that he hopes to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun in Washington in the near future. This is an important signal: Washington wants to elevate the talks above the ambassadorial level and bring them to a political format.
But there remains a significant distance between such a scenario and reality.
The Lebanese side, according to published reports, is interested in a long-term ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. Israel, in turn, focuses not on the ceasefire formula itself, but on the issue of ‘Hezbollah’: disarming the group, limiting its influence, and providing real guarantees that northern Israel will not again be under constant threat of rockets, drones, and possible infiltration attempts.
Why the US is rushing the process
The American logic is clear. Washington is trying to hold several fronts simultaneously: negotiations on Lebanon, pressure on ‘Hezbollah’, tension around Iran, and the security of Israel. International publications link the current diplomatic activity to a broader regional crisis, including the US-Iran confrontation.
That is why the extension of the ceasefire for three weeks looks like time gained, not a ready solution. The US wants to use this window to push Lebanon towards a tougher line against ‘Hezbollah’, and Israel to maintain the diplomatic channel.
For the Israeli audience, it is important to separate the beautiful picture from the essence. Photos from the White House and words about a ‘historic moment’ do not yet mean that the threat from the north has disappeared. Israel has already experienced situations where agreements on paper did not prevent ‘Hezbollah’ from accumulating rockets, strengthening positions, and turning southern Lebanon into military infrastructure under the cover of civilian areas.
Goals of the parties: why an agreement is not yet close
The US wants not a pause, but a political result
For the Trump administration, the best scenario is not just extending the silence at the border, but transitioning to direct political dialogue between Israel and Lebanon. Ideally, Washington would like to see a meeting between Netanyahu and Aoun, followed by a move towards a peace agreement or at least a new security framework.
But such a scenario depends on whether Lebanon can show that it is not a hostage of ‘Hezbollah’.
This is the main question for now.
Lebanon demands the withdrawal of Israeli forces
Beirut emphasizes the ceasefire and the withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanese territory. President Joseph Aoun, according to statements, is ready for contact with Trump but not ready for negotiations with Netanyahu while the Israeli army maintains a presence in southern Lebanon.
From Lebanon’s point of view, this is a matter of sovereignty.
From Israel’s point of view, it is a matter of security: if the IDF leaves without a real control mechanism, the vacuum may again be filled by ‘Hezbollah’. Therefore, Jerusalem does not want the entire conversation to be reduced only to the withdrawal of troops. The Israeli position is built around another point: who guarantees that after the army leaves, ‘Hezbollah’ armed forces will not return to the border?
Israel demands to solve the ‘Hezbollah’ problem
For Israel, the key goal is not symbolic diplomacy, but the security of the north. This includes disarming ‘Hezbollah’, limiting its political and military influence in Lebanon, and providing guarantees for the residents of Kiryat Shmona, Metula, Shlomi, Nahariya, Galilee, and other areas that know too well the price of ‘temporary ceasefires’.
In this context, Ambassador Yehiel Leiter’s statement that the constant focus on the withdrawal of Israeli troops leads the negotiations ‘in the wrong direction’ reflects the main Israeli line. Israel is trying to shift the conversation from the map to the threat: not only where the soldiers stand, but who will hold the rockets at the border tomorrow.
This is how the question sounds for Israeli society.
In the middle of this diplomatic story, it is important to see not only the headlines about meetings in Washington but also the practical side of security. For readers of NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency the main question sounds simple: will this pause lead to a real reduction of the threat in northern Israel or will it again become a respite that ‘Hezbollah’ uses for regrouping.
Context: there is a ceasefire, but no trust
Both sides accuse each other of violating the ceasefire regime. Against the backdrop of negotiations, there were reports of rocket launches by ‘Hezbollah’ and Israeli strikes on targets and militants that the IDF considers a security threat.
This is the main paradox of the current stage: diplomacy is ongoing, but the war has not disappeared. It has simply become more manageable, more politically sensitive, and more dependent on Washington’s decisions.
Why ‘Hezbollah’ is against direct dialogue
‘Hezbollah’ opposes direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon because any such dialogue undermines its central political myth. The group has built its legitimacy for years on the thesis of ‘resistance to Israel’. If the state of Lebanon starts talking directly with Israel, especially with American mediation, it will mean: Beirut is trying to regain the right to make decisions on war and peace.
For ‘Hezbollah’, this is more dangerous than the diplomatic formula itself.
The President and Prime Minister of Lebanon, on the contrary, are interested in bringing the country out of a state of constant hostage. Lebanon cannot restore its economy, strengthen institutions, and regain investor confidence while its southern border remains a front, and decisions on war are effectively dependent on an armed organization.
What this means for Israel
For Israel, the extension of the ceasefire for three weeks is neither a victory nor a defeat. It is a window of opportunity.
If during these weeks the US can secure tougher commitments from Lebanon on ‘Hezbollah’, the situation in the north may begin to change. If it all comes down to pressure on Israel to withdraw forces without real guarantees, the risks will only increase.
The most dangerous mistake now is to take a diplomatic gesture for a strategic decision. A peace treaty with Lebanon is possible only when it is backed not by a beautiful ceremony in Washington, but by a new reality on the ground: the Lebanese army, international guarantees, control over southern Lebanon, and the real displacement of ‘Hezbollah’ from the Israeli border.
Until this happens, Israel will continue to view the ceasefire not as peace, but as a test of intentions.
What’s next
The next three weeks will be a test for all participants.
For the US — whether they can turn the diplomatic impulse into a sustainable mechanism. For Lebanon — whether the state is ready to act as a sovereign power, not as a political shell next to ‘Hezbollah’. For Israel — whether it is possible to achieve northern security through negotiations without repeating the old mistake when temporary silence turned into a new war.
That is why the current process should be evaluated cautiously. It is important because a direct channel between Israel and Lebanon is rare in itself. But it still does not solve the main question: who will control southern Lebanon after the end of this three-week pause — the state of Lebanon or ‘Hezbollah’.
As long as the answer is unclear, Israel cannot afford to relax.