Caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati this week expressed, during a meeting with ambassadors and acting representatives of the UN Security Council’s member states, Lebanon’s readiness to engage in indirect negotiations with Israel to achieve a ceasefire and end the ongoing war in the south of the country between Hezbollah and the Israeli army, amid escalating exchanges of fire and Israeli threats to expand the conflict. Moreover, following the meeting, Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib, who is affiliated with Gebran Basil’s Free Patriotic Movement and a Hezbollah ally, confirmed this wish for a ceasefire. The caretaker government emphasized that Hezbollah might reject such negotiations and that Lebanon would try to convince the group if the state accepted a ceasefire agreement. The foreign minister’s declaration stirred controversy in Lebanon, but for all the wrong reasons. Indeed, no one questioned how a sovereign state acts as a go-between for an armed militia. What a derelict state of affairs it is when Lebanon needs to seek the approval or permission of an armed militia on national decisions. There is no need for controversy and the only clarity is that every step taken by the government is either to deflect international pressure on Hezbollah or to be part of its tactics, done with its approval and planning. We must remember that it was also revealed a week prior to these Lebanese declarations that senior US and Israeli officials held a virtual meeting at the request of the Biden administration to discuss de-escalating tensions with Lebanon and preventing a full-scale conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. In all these discussions, the only mention of Lebanon was related to the geographical movement of refugees as a result of the ongoing military confrontation. They were only about negotiating with Hezbollah as if an entire country had been erased. The international community has continued to legitimize this armed militia. What a derelict state of affairs it is when Lebanon needs to seek the approval or permission of an armed militia Khaled Abou Zahr The key point is that all parties understand that these de-escalation efforts, which are mostly pushed by the current US administration as the war in Gaza continues, are for the reestablishment or confirmation of the rules of engagement between Israel and Hezbollah and to avoid a new front. They understand that nothing more will be achieved. It is hence a shameful situation whereby the Lebanese state is reduced to acting as a go-between for an armed militia. The sovereign state is either willingly executing Hezbollah’s orders or is a part of its deception plans. In both cases, it is an outrageous situation. Yet, I must ask: does anyone still believe there is a separation between the Lebanese state and Hezbollah? Do they apply this nonsense the same way they mention an armed branch and a political branch within this Iranian-backed militia? Does anyone still believe this? Or are they just pretending? The eradication of Lebanon in the international dialogue is a dangerous situation. And no one seems to care. We must also remember how the Lebanese state had to seek Hezbollah’s permission to pursue negotiations with Israel on delineating the common maritime borders to allow both countries to exploit gas reserves in the Mediterranean Sea. It was in October 2022 that the US mediated this agreement. Under this agreement, Israel retained full rights to the Karish gas field, while Lebanon gained rights to the Qana gas field. However, since the Qana field extends into Israeli waters, Israel is entitled to receive royalties from any gas extracted there. And so, the all-fighting Hezbollah was fine with paying royalties to the Israeli side. Go figure. Lebanon has yet to see any enhancement of its economic situation or infrastructure from this agreement. The inherent corruption in the rule of a militia is a guarantee it will never see the benefits. The south of the country, in the geographical sense, no longer belongs to Lebanon but to Hezbollah Khaled Abou Zahr It was interesting that, in his declarations, Bou Habib mentioned that a future ceasefire decision would require a new resolution, not an amendment of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Despite apparent questioning from Hezbollah on these declarations, this solution plays into the group’s wishes of only applying one part of the 2006 resolution — and not the one that forces it to surrender its weapons. In any case, Hezbollah knows that, just like any other agreement, any new one would be an obligation on the rest of Lebanon while it is exempt. On the other hand, Israel’s main demand for any diplomatic agreement with Lebanon is that Hezbollah’s forces withdraw at least 10 km away from the border. And a key condition is establishing a reliable method to verify that Hezbollah’s militants have left the area and not returned. There is zero chance of any international institution being capable of guaranteeing this today. While the Lebanese state is under the control of Hezbollah, the south of the country, in the geographical sense, no longer belongs to Lebanon but to Hezbollah. While we all seek an end to the conflict, we cannot allow for Hezbollah to once again usurp the decision on war or peace. We cannot allow Hezbollah to decide when Lebanon should negotiate and when it should sit silent. The Lebanese state should not be a tool to deflect international pressure away from Hezbollah’s actions. We cannot allow the sovereign Lebanese state to be a puppet in the hands of this Iranian-backed armed militia. The US hinted at the possibility of real de-escalation between Israel and Hezbollah after a ceasefire in Gaza, but the reality is that, as long as Hezbollah acts as the sovereign Lebanese voice, there is little hope for stability. Lebanon will continue to be erased in a game of deterrence and war cycles between Israel and Hezbollah. Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, CEO of EurabiaMedia, and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.