Abu Dhabi, UAE – The deal that secured the release of five Lebanese men from Israeli detention was more than just a prisoner exchange. This time, the exchange wasn’t for Israelis held in Lebanon, but rather for Lebanese assistance in the search for the remains of Lebanese Jews who disappeared during the civil war of the 1980s. While the first Lebanese man, Malek Ghazi, was released on September 3, four others were transferred to Lebanon via the International Committee of the Red Cross the following day.
The new equation opens a different door in the negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv: Has the issue of the missing and the remains become part of the confidence-building measures and a basis for negotiating current issues? While five humanitarian files have already yielded a limited Israeli step, the bigger question is whether this track can evolve into a broader negotiating mechanism. This mechanism could encompass the remaining prisoners, the Israeli withdrawal, and the future of security arrangements in the south.
From “prisoner exchange” to “file exchange”
What’s striking about the agreement is that Israel did not receive any Israeli prisoners in return. According to Tel Aviv, it agreed to release five Lebanese civilians after Lebanon assisted in the search for the remains of leaders from the Lebanese Jewish community. Israel said they were kidnapped and killed by armed groups during the civil war.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) confirms that it facilitated the transfer of five detainees from Israel to Lebanon, while noting that Lebanese families are still awaiting information about the fate of relatives who may be detained, deceased, or missing. The ICRC also called for access to the remaining Lebanese detainees held by Israel, access to whom it has been cut off since October 2023. Here, the nature of the equation changes: a living prisoner in exchange for information about a missing person, or a humanitarian issue in exchange for a political move. This is not a traditional prisoner exchange, but a model that can broaden the scope of negotiations. When the most difficult issues cannot be resolved all at once, such models can open new opportunities.
Why did the “Jews of Lebanon” return to the negotiating table?
The case dates back to a particularly complex period of the Lebanese Civil War. Reports indicate that Israel raised the issue of the fate of several Lebanese Jews who disappeared in the 1980s, linking the release of Lebanese detainees to efforts to locate their remains. Reports suggest that approximately 12 members of the Lebanese Jewish community are still missing.
Ironically, the Lebanese Jewish community, now almost nonexistent, was a vibrant part of Lebanese life in the mid-20th century. According to the Associated Press, the Jewish population in Lebanon ranged between 15,000 and 22,000 during the 1960s before wars, emigration, and the civil war drastically reduced their presence. Thus, the negotiations not only reopen the file on missing persons but also revive a part of Lebanon’s collective memory that has remained unresolved since the civil war. This gives the issue a significance that transcends the number of remains being searched for. It is a test of the Lebanese state’s ability to address the cases of those missing from the war, regardless of their identity or religious affiliation. Furthermore, it is an attempt to transform this issue from a postponed memory into a negotiable and manageable matter.
Only five prisoners… what about the rest?
Despite the significance of this recent release, the number is far from the scale of the Lebanese detainees file. Lebanese sources reported in August that 34 Lebanese citizens were documented as being held by Israel, in addition to dozens of others whose fate remains unknown after contact was lost with them during the war.
Therefore, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s message was broader than simply celebrating the release of the five; he pledged to continue working towards the release of all prisoners, uncovering the fate of the missing, and achieving a complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The distinction is significant: while the release of five civilians was achieved through the issue of remains, extending the same mechanism to secure the release of the remaining detainees will require far more complex negotiations and compromises.
The remains as a “bridge” to the more difficult deal
The release of the prisoners came at a highly sensitive moment in the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations. The United States played a direct role in mediating the deal, and the State Department described the move as a result of Washington-led mediation between the two governments. Nevertheless, there is hope that it will serve as a basis for expanding discussions on other civilian issues.
In the background lie far more weighty issues: the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, security arrangements, and Hezbollah’s weapons. Beirut and Tel Aviv reached a US-brokered framework in June based on an Israeli withdrawal from areas in the south in exchange for arrangements related to Hezbollah’s disarmament, but implementation has stalled. Negotiations are expected to resume in Rome in September. Herein lies the true political value of the prisoner exchange: the remains may not be the core of the deal, but rather the first issue through which the two sides can test the feasibility of implementing limited understandings. This is done without directly addressing the issues that threaten to derail the entire negotiation process.
Is the “file trading” starting?
It is premature to say that Israel and Lebanon have truly entered a new system of “exchanging files,” but recent developments offer a striking example: a file from the past helped advance a current one, and American mediation transformed a humanitarian issue into a step within a broader political process. If this pattern continues, smaller humanitarian files could become tools for unlocking closed doors: detainees, missing persons, remains, borders, and then withdrawal and security arrangements. But the success of this path will hinge on a more difficult question: can Beirut and Tel Aviv transform limited steps into implementable understandings? Or will each file remain a separate deal that does not alter the core of the conflict?
Ultimately, the irony lies in the fact that while five prisoners were released, the catalyst for the deal wasn’t an Israeli prisoner awaiting return, but rather the remains of Lebanese Jews who have been waiting for decades to be located. Between the living awaiting freedom and the missing whose families await the truth, these “remains” may have become one of the most peculiar issues on the negotiating table between Israel and Lebanon.
