Abu Dhabi, UAE – The release of five Lebanese detainees from Israeli custody was more than just a fleeting humanitarian gesture. The timing of the release, coupled with Israel’s assistance to Beirut in searching for the remains of Lebanese Jews, and its subsequent takeover of Ali Taher Hill in southern Lebanon, raises a broader question. Has Washington begun to restructure negotiations between Israel and Lebanon by addressing smaller, more manageable issues? Perhaps this is a prelude to more complex matters.
Five detainees in exchange for the remains file
Israel released five detainees, including three Lebanese and two Syrians, after an Israeli investigation concluded they had no ties to terrorist organizations. The release came as part of understandings brokered by the United States, coinciding with Lebanese cooperation in the search for the remains of Lebanese Jews who disappeared during the civil war. However, the issue of the remains did not emerge suddenly. It had been raised in previous Israeli-Lebanese talks, alongside the detainees. This indicates that the humanitarian track was progressing in parallel with the broader political and security negotiations.
Why Ali Taher now?
As the prisoner exchange deal was underway, Israel announced its operational control of Ali Taher Hill. This high point near Nabatieh holds strategic importance due to its commanding view of villages and main roads, and its connection to a network of tunnels and Hezbollah military installations, according to Israeli accounts and international reports. The hill’s significance lies in its location at the heart of the major sticking point that has stalled any understanding between Israel and Lebanon. Israel demands security guarantees and the disarmament of Hezbollah before any withdrawal, while Lebanon insists on a complete Israeli withdrawal. Hezbollah, for its part, refuses to surrender its weapons under Israeli terms. Therefore, Ali Taher has become more than just a military position; it has become a test of the post-ceasefire equation.
The small deal and the big file
Washington says the release of the detainees is a step that could help advance further talks between Israel and Lebanon. The US State Department said it hopes the dialogue will continue after the release. This presents a different picture of the negotiations. Instead of waiting for a comprehensive agreement on borders, weapons, and withdrawal, the process could begin with specific issues: detainees, missing persons, remains, and civilian arrangements. Security matters could then be addressed gradually. This approach is not entirely new. US-led negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv have already explored a mechanism for verifying the implementation of security arrangements. This includes the role of foreign countries in monitoring the agreement’s implementation. Washington also pushed for the resumption of talks in Rome in September.
From remains to weapon
Ironically, the humanitarian file, which the parties have managed to advance, directly intersects with the security file, which remains unresolved. Lebanon wants the release of all detainees, information on the fate of the missing, and an end to the Israeli presence on Lebanese soil. Israel, however, links its withdrawal to the removal and disarmament of Hezbollah from the area. Hezbollah, for its part, maintains that an Israeli withdrawal must precede any discussion of its weapons. The developments in Ali Taher illustrate the vast gap between these two approaches. While steps are being taken to build trust regarding the detainees and remains, Israel is simultaneously working to establish a new military reality in the south. Reports indicate that the hill has become an integral part of the security zone that Israel is attempting to impose.
Has a bigger deal begun?
There is still no publicly available evidence proving a comprehensive deal directly linking the remains to Ali al-Taher. However, the timing of these developments reveals a negotiating track that warrants further investigation. Washington is attempting to keep communication channels open, while Israel is employing military tactics on the ground. Lebanon is seeking humanitarian and political gains. Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s weapons and the Israeli withdrawal remain the most intractable issues.
Therefore, the significance of releasing five detainees may not lie in their number, but rather in the possibility of this type of understanding evolving into a gradual negotiating model. A humanitarian file would be addressed, followed by another, then civil arrangements, ultimately leading to the question that negotiations have thus far failed to resolve: who withdraws first, and who guarantees that the South will not return to war? While the issue of remains is being discussed at the negotiating table, Ali Taher is becoming a bargaining chip on the ground. Between these two issues, Washington may be testing the possibility of building an Israeli-Lebanese agreement not all at once, but piecemeal.
