For over four decades, Lebanon has lived under the shadow of proxy wars, external manipulation, and internal fragmentation. The turning points that shaped this predicament are well known: the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon that lasted from 1978 to 2000, the rise of Hezbollah as an armed non-state actor, and the subsequent erosion of Lebanese state authority. Now, a quarter of a century later, a rare opportunity has emerged-one that could finally reverse that trajectory. With President Michel Aoun’s recent declaration that Lebanon must pursue negotiations with Israel through diplomatic means, the idea of peace between the two countries, long deemed impossible, is once again on the table.

But this time, the circumstances are dramatically different. Hezbollah, the dominant force that once dictated Lebanon’s security and foreign policy, has been severely weakened following years of conflict, sanctions, and military setbacks. Meanwhile, the Lebanese state-though fragile-appears eager to reassert control over matters of war and peace. If handled wisely, this could mark the beginning of a new chapter: one where Lebanon transitions from being a proxy battlefield to a sovereign actor seeking stability and peace.

To understand the magnitude of the moment, one must revisit the history that created Hezbollah’s dominance. In May 2000, Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon after 22 years of occupation. Then–Prime Minister Ehud Barak made the decision to end a costly and unpopular military presence that had drained Israel’s economy and morale. The withdrawal was meant to stabilize Israel’s northern border, but it had the opposite effect.

In the power vacuum left behind, Israel’s proxy force, the South Lebanese Army (SLA), quickly disintegrated, and Hezbollah-the Iran-backed Shiite militia-moved in. Overnight, Hezbollah became not only the “liberator” of southern Lebanon but also a dominant political and military force. The Lebanese state was too weak and divided to fill the gap. As a result, Hezbollah became the de facto authority in the south, positioning itself as both a resistance force and a political entity-a dual role that allowed it to overshadow national institutions.

The situation was exacerbated by Israel’s retention of the Shebaa Farms, a small but symbolically important strip of land that Lebanon claims as its own, though it is technically part of Syrian territory. Hezbollah used the continued Israeli presence there as justification to retain its weapons, portraying itself as the only legitimate defender of Lebanon’s sovereignty. Thus began two decades of what many Lebanese describe as “state within a state” politics-a condition where Hezbollah made key national security decisions independently, particularly those concerning Israel.

From 2000 to 2006, an uneasy calm prevailed along the Israeli-Lebanese border. Despite sporadic skirmishes, both sides observed unwritten “rules of engagement” under UN supervision, maintaining a fragile stability. However, this balance collapsed in July 2006 when Hezbollah launched a cross-border raid that killed and captured Israeli soldiers, triggering a devastating month-long war.

The 2006 war exposed the contradictions of Hezbollah’s role. While its supporters celebrated its survival as a “divine victory,” the broader Lebanese population suffered enormous losses-both human and economic. The war caused billions in damage and deepened sectarian divisions, yet Hezbollah’s influence only grew. The group rebuilt faster than the state, fortified its political dominance, and further aligned with Iran’s regional agenda.

A similar pattern unfolded in Gaza, where Israel’s unilateral withdrawal in 2005 paved the way for Hamas to seize control. In both cases, Israel’s decisions to disengage militarily created ungoverned spaces that were quickly filled by militant groups backed by external powers. For Lebanon, the result was the near-total erosion of sovereignty in security affairs.

The situation began to shift dramatically in 2024, when Israel launched a major offensive against Hezbollah that bore echoes of its 1982 campaign against the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This time, the objective was not deterrence-it was destruction. The offensive inflicted severe losses on Hezbollah’s leadership and infrastructure, leaving the organization weakened and politically vulnerable.

In the aftermath, a new sense of possibility has emerged in Beirut. With Hezbollah’s power waning, Lebanese leaders have a narrow but critical window to reassert state authority. President Michel Aoun’s statement that Lebanon must “negotiate with Israel using diplomatic language” is therefore more than symbolic-it is a declaration that the Lebanese state intends to reclaim its sovereignty.

The creation of the Mechanism Committee in 2024, a Lebanese military body tasked with coordinating border issues and security matters with Israel under UN mediation, further underscores this shift. The committee’s existence demonstrates that the Lebanese army-not Hezbollah-is now being positioned as the legitimate defender of the country’s borders. US Deputy Special Envoy Morgan Ortagus even proposed expanding the committee to include civilian experts, reinforcing the idea that peace negotiations should be institutionalized and state-driven.

For Lebanon, peace with Israel would not only end decades of hostility but also transform the country’s geopolitical trajectory. The first and most immediate benefit would be the restoration of sovereignty. By directly managing border disputes-particularly over the Shebaa Farms and maritime boundaries-the Lebanese government would remove Hezbollah’s last justification for maintaining its arsenal.

Second, normalization could unlock massive economic opportunities. Lebanon’s economy remains crippled by years of corruption, mismanagement, and sanctions. Peace with Israel, accompanied by international guarantees and investment, could attract reconstruction aid, tourism, and trade, much like the post-peace economic booms seen in Egypt and Jordan. Additionally, maritime border settlements could enable joint exploration of offshore gas reserves in the Mediterranean, offering Lebanon a desperately needed source of revenue.

Third, peace would reintegrate Lebanon into the regional diplomatic landscape. Syria’s own leadership has reportedly expressed openness to negotiating with Israel, suggesting a broader Middle Eastern shift toward pragmatic engagement. If Damascus and Beirut both pursue diplomatic normalization, it would significantly reduce Iran’s influence and help stabilize the Levant.

However, peace will not be possible unless Hezbollah’s military power is dismantled. Disarmament must occur independently of negotiations with Israel, not as a precondition or bargaining chip. Linking the two would only provide Hezbollah with leverage to delay or sabotage the process.

Lebanon’s political class must therefore act decisively. The army should assume full control over national defense, and all armed groups must be dissolved. This will require international support-particularly from the United States, France, and Arab partners like Saudi Arabia and Egypt-to ensure both security and political stability during the transition.

It is likely that Israel will approach negotiations cautiously, demanding strong guarantees and highlighting that Hezbollah’s defeat was a necessary step toward peace. Tel Aviv will not easily concede territory or security arrangements without concrete evidence that Lebanon is free from Iranian influence. Nevertheless, Israel also has incentives for peace: a stable northern border, reduced Iranian presence, and the potential for regional economic cooperation.

If Lebanon successfully negotiates a peace agreement and dismantles Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, it would mark one of the most significant transformations in the country’s modern history. For the first time since the civil war, the Lebanese state would control its territory, borders, and foreign policy. It would regain the right to decide when and how to wage peace or war-rights that have long been usurped by a proxy militia serving foreign interests.

President Aoun’s courage in initiating this process cannot be understated. His call for diplomacy represents not surrender but maturity-a recognition that Lebanon’s survival depends on sovereignty, not perpetual conflict. Peace with Israel is not about capitulation; it is about reclaiming Lebanon’s agency and opening the door to a future of stability and prosperity.

The road ahead will be long and fraught with resistance. Yet for a nation exhausted by war and economic collapse, peace offers something that endless “resistance” never could: the chance to live, rebuild, and thrive as a truly independent state. If Lebanon and Israel seize this moment, they could turn a century of enmity into a future of coexistence-and finally allow Lebanon to stand on its own two feet once again.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

Damsana Ranadhiran, Special Contributor to Blitz is a security analyst specializing on South Asian affairs.