Liban nema drugog izbora nego da napravi "pilot zone" u odnosu na Izrael.

Lebanon’s government faces mounting pressure to ensure the success of its controversial “pilot zones” agreement with Israel, as both nations continue to navigate complex political and security dynamics. Last week, Lebanese and Israeli representatives convened in Rome to discuss the implementation of a critical component of their recent agreement, signed in Washington. The focus of the discussions centered on so-called pilot zones, areas where the Lebanese military would be stationed following an Israeli withdrawal. Despite ongoing tensions, the Lebanese leadership remains determined to advance the agreement, believing that successful implementation could demonstrate the viability of diplomatic engagement with Israel and potentially lead to the liberation of occupied territories. The meeting took place amid heightened expectations for progress, particularly given the upcoming visit of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to the United States, where he is set to meet with President Donald Trump. Lebanese officials hope that U.S. influence could help sway Israeli positions, especially regarding the pace and scope of Israeli troop withdrawals. However, Israeli officials have made it clear that they are unwilling to relinquish control over what they refer to as “security zones” in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza. These zones are viewed as vital to maintaining regional stability and ensuring Israeli national security. Israeli leaders have emphasized that a complete withdrawal is not guaranteed, despite earlier commitments. According to reports, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received direct encouragement from Trump during a private conversation, where the U.S. leader reportedly urged him to redeploy Israeli troops from Syria and Lebanon. Such remarks underscore the growing influence of American policy in shaping the trajectory of Israeli military decisions. Meanwhile, Lebanese authorities have faced domestic and international scrutiny for signing a framework agreement last month that placed significant burdens on Lebanon while offering minimal assurances from Israel. The agreement included a vague statement that Israel has “no territorial ambitions in Lebanon,” but critics argue it lacks enforceability and fails to address core concerns about sovereignty and security. The Lebanese delegation’s internal challenges were further highlighted during a recent negotiation session, where the head of the delegation, Simon Karam, reportedly left the room before being convinced to return. This incident reflects the deep divisions within Lebanon’s political establishment regarding the terms of the agreement. With the framework agreement already signed, Lebanon now finds itself at a crossroads. It can either proceed with the agreement, despite its shortcomings, and seek to leverage U.S. support to secure additional concessions from Israel, or it can abandon the deal and align more closely with armed resistance groups opposed to Israeli occupation. Choosing the second path would carry severe consequences, including the loss of U.S. backing, potential Israeli retaliation, and increased instability in southern Lebanon. Furthermore, such a move could strengthen Iran’s influence in Lebanon, which Lebanese officials aim to prevent. As a result, many in the Lebanese government believe the former option is preferable, even if it requires navigating difficult compromises. To make the pilot zones initiative work, Lebanese officials emphasize the need for a unified strategy. The Lebanese military must be positioned in these zones to assert state authority and prevent Hezbollah from using them as launching points against Israel. This approach risks accusations of collaborating with an adversary, but Lebanese leaders argue that strategic positioning is necessary to legitimize the state’s presence and demonstrate the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts. To counter potential backlash, Lebanon must insist that the return of displaced residents is a precondition for the pilot zones’ success. U.S. involvement will be crucial in pressuring Israel to prioritize this outcome. As the situation unfolds, the success of the pilot zones will hinge on whether Lebanon can build broad domestic and regional support for its stance, while simultaneously managing the delicate balance of power between Israel, the U.S., and regional actors. The coming weeks will likely determine whether the agreement becomes a stepping stone toward lasting peace or another failed attempt at reconciliation.