Maariv reveals gap between Israel and Lebanon: Preparatory meeting or negotiations?

Israel-Lebanon talks: Maariv reveals gap between sides before Washington meeting. In a separate development, Lebanese source: Tripartite call Friday April 10 between Lebanon, Israel envoys and US ambassador.

Days before an upcoming meeting in Washington between officials from Israel, Lebanon and the United States, Israeli newspaper Maariv revealed a dispute between the two sides over the nature of the meeting.

While Israeli sources say the meeting is the beginning of real negotiations, Lebanese and American sources describe it as merely a preliminary meeting to discuss a ceasefire.

The report also revealed internal Israeli disputes that led to a change in the official responsible for negotiations, and an interpretation gap between what Israel says and what Pakistan conveyed to Iran regarding Tel Aviv’s agreement to include Lebanon in a ceasefire agreement.

Definition gap and maneuvering room for Beirut

While American and Lebanese sources describe the meeting as an initial phase to strengthen communications regarding a ceasefire, confirming that Lebanon has not yet completed its preparations, Israeli sources say the matter is not just a preparatory meeting but the launch of real negotiations at the ambassadorial level.

According to the newspaper, choosing the ambassadorial level aims to give Beirut a political “protective layer,” allowing it to enter the talks path without appearing as having immediately opened public political communications at a high level, thus giving it maneuvering room before internal criticism.

Israeli justifications for Lebanese caution

Maariv quoted Israeli sources as saying that Lebanon’s extreme caution in definitions, its insistence on preconditions and restrictive formulations does not indicate an absence of negotiations but rather reflects Beirut’s need to manage the step cautiously before the domestic public, Hezbollah, and the political system.

The sources added that opening the channel at the ambassadorial level was intended from the beginning to serve this sensitivity, allowing progress without igniting an immediate internal storm on the Lebanese side.

Israeli change

The report stated that the communications will be led by Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Yecheil Leiter, and not Ron Dermer, due to a previous dispute over a formula that would include a ceasefire in Lebanon.

In the communications that preceded the temporary truce between the United States and Iran, Dermer was in contact with President Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who asked Israel to align with a broader formula that would also include Lebanon.

Military refuses, Netanyahu decides

American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner asked Israel to agree to a broader ceasefire formula that would include Lebanon alongside Iran.

Ambassador Ron Dermer believed that going along with the Americans was in Israel’s interest, not because he wanted to change policy toward Hezbollah, but because helping President Trump with a step he sees as politically important would benefit Israel.

However, the Israeli army and the security establishment strongly opposed. They believed that agreeing to a formula that includes Lebanon could be interpreted within Israel as a truce giving Hezbollah an opportunity to reorganize its ranks. They also warned that the step could blur the distinction between Lebanon as a state and Hezbollah as an armed group.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resolved the dispute by refusing approval. According to the report, he was aware that Israeli areas in the north were suffering from great frustration and anger due to the ongoing shooting and escalation.

Netanyahu closed the file in a direct conversation with Trump.

Interpretation gap

The report stated that the gap between the Israeli narrative (opposing the inclusion of Lebanon in the ceasefire formula) and the Pakistani narrative conveyed to Iran (Israel’s approval) was born from an expanded interpretation of a cautious position.

Maariv reported that Dermer did not give final approval for the formula, but indicated to American officials that he would recommend it to the Prime Minister.

Informed sources explain that a statement by a figure of Dermer’s stature could be read as implicit approval. According to the analysis, the gap emerged here, which was not an Israeli commitment but an expanded interpretation of a cautious position that diplomatic circles circulated as an Israeli understanding, according to the newspaper.

Reality reading

Ambassador Leiter is known for his approach that Israel must maintain full freedom of action against Hezbollah as long as Lebanon itself does not deal with it. His appointment also reflects the structure Israel chose for this channel: communications at an ostensibly lower level, but with a clear political structure internally.

Estimates indicate that Tel Aviv’s insistence on precise definitions does not reflect a courtesy meeting or a preliminary technical phase, but a gradual opening to real negotiations. Informed sources believe that the dispute between Netanyahu and Dermer is not personal, but rather a point-by-point disagreement over reading reality, assessment, and the correct way to balance American pressure with Israeli internal sensitivity.

Sources: Maariv + RT

A Lebanese official source had confirmed to Al Jazeera that the first contact between the ambassadors of Lebanon and Israel in Washington will take place today, Friday April 10, at 21:00 Beirut time, with the US ambassador in Beirut joining the call.

The source added that the contact will be tripartite and aims to set a date for the preparatory meeting for Israeli-Lebanese negotiations.