French President Emmanuel Macron held talks with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam in Paris late on Tuesday, with both leaders using the meeting to push for stability in southern Lebanon and to rally support for a country reeling from weeks of war.
Issued on: 22/04/2026 - RFI
France's President Emmanuel Macron shakes hands with Lebanon's Prime Minister Nawaf Salam at the Elysee Presidential Palace in Paris on 21 April 2026. AFP - LUDOVIC MARIN
Speaking after their meeting, Salam said Lebanon would need €500 million over the next six months to address the humanitarian fallout from the conflict, as a fragile 10-day ceasefire with Israel continues to hold.
The Lebanese authorities have put the death toll from six weeks of fighting at 2,450, with at least 7,650 wounded, since early March.
The meeting at the Élysée Palace focused on maintaining the ceasefire and reaffirming France’s backing for Lebanon’s territorial integrity, while also looking ahead to renewed negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv.
Macron struck a firm but balanced tone, urging Israel to “renounce its territorial ambitions” in Lebanon while insisting that Hezbollah must stop firing into Israeli territory and be disarmed “by the Lebanese themselves”.
He also called for a broader agreement that would guarantee “the security of both countries” and lay the groundwork for a possible normalisation of relations.
For his part, Salam said Lebanon was seeking the “complete withdrawal” of Israeli forces from its territory, alongside the return of prisoners and displaced civilians, as part of the talks set to resume in Washington later this week.
Israel’s ‘buffer zone’
Even as Macron hardened his public language, French officials have continued to strike a more measured tone. The Élysée has described the Israeli military’s “buffer zone” in southern Lebanon as “temporary”, stopping short of calling for its immediate removal.
Israeli forces have pushed deep into the region, drawing what officials describe as a defensive “yellow line” aimed at shielding northern Israeli communities from cross-border fire.
French officials have suggested that, for now, stabilisation takes precedence over territorial adjustments. The buffer zone, they argue, is intended as a short-term security measure rather than a permanent redrawing of borders.
“The issue today is not to shift these lines,” an Élysée official said, stressing instead the need to prevent a resumption of hostilities.
The expectation in Paris is that the question of territory will be resolved through negotiations – with Lebanon’s “territorial integrity” ultimately restored as part of a lasting peace agreement.
France has also pushed back against suggestions it should remain on the sidelines. Despite reported Israeli reluctance to involve Paris directly, Macron’s advisers insist France is uniquely placed to support Lebanon in implementing the disarmament of Hezbollah and reinforcing state authority in the south.
Speaking after their meeting, Salam said Lebanon would need €500 million over the next six months to address the humanitarian fallout from the conflict, as a fragile 10-day ceasefire with Israel continues to hold.
The Lebanese authorities have put the death toll from six weeks of fighting at 2,450, with at least 7,650 wounded, since early March.
The meeting at the Élysée Palace focused on maintaining the ceasefire and reaffirming France’s backing for Lebanon’s territorial integrity, while also looking ahead to renewed negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv.
Macron struck a firm but balanced tone, urging Israel to “renounce its territorial ambitions” in Lebanon while insisting that Hezbollah must stop firing into Israeli territory and be disarmed “by the Lebanese themselves”.
He also called for a broader agreement that would guarantee “the security of both countries” and lay the groundwork for a possible normalisation of relations.
For his part, Salam said Lebanon was seeking the “complete withdrawal” of Israeli forces from its territory, alongside the return of prisoners and displaced civilians, as part of the talks set to resume in Washington later this week.
Israel’s ‘buffer zone’
Even as Macron hardened his public language, French officials have continued to strike a more measured tone. The Élysée has described the Israeli military’s “buffer zone” in southern Lebanon as “temporary”, stopping short of calling for its immediate removal.
Israeli forces have pushed deep into the region, drawing what officials describe as a defensive “yellow line” aimed at shielding northern Israeli communities from cross-border fire.
French officials have suggested that, for now, stabilisation takes precedence over territorial adjustments. The buffer zone, they argue, is intended as a short-term security measure rather than a permanent redrawing of borders.
“The issue today is not to shift these lines,” an Élysée official said, stressing instead the need to prevent a resumption of hostilities.
The expectation in Paris is that the question of territory will be resolved through negotiations – with Lebanon’s “territorial integrity” ultimately restored as part of a lasting peace agreement.
France has also pushed back against suggestions it should remain on the sidelines. Despite reported Israeli reluctance to involve Paris directly, Macron’s advisers insist France is uniquely placed to support Lebanon in implementing the disarmament of Hezbollah and reinforcing state authority in the south.
Map of the Israeli occupation zone in Lebanon © reuters
UNIFIL attack underscores tensions
Tuesday’s meeting came in the shadow of a deadly ambush on UN peacekeepers last week, where a French soldier serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was killed over the weekend, with three others wounded.
Macron blamed Hezbollah for the attack but stressed that France itself had not been specifically singled out. “They didn’t target them because they were French,” he said earlier this week. “They targeted them because they were on a mission to stand alongside the civilian population.”
The incident has sharpened concerns about the risks facing peacekeepers even as the ceasefire holds. France has said it is ready to maintain its commitment on the ground in Lebanon even after the UNIFIL mission is due to end at the close of the year.
The UN Security Council has condemned the attack in the strongest terms and reaffirmed its full support for the mission. Hezbollah, which opposes the Lebanon–Israel talks, has denied involvement.
UNIFIL attack underscores tensions
Tuesday’s meeting came in the shadow of a deadly ambush on UN peacekeepers last week, where a French soldier serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was killed over the weekend, with three others wounded.
Macron blamed Hezbollah for the attack but stressed that France itself had not been specifically singled out. “They didn’t target them because they were French,” he said earlier this week. “They targeted them because they were on a mission to stand alongside the civilian population.”
The incident has sharpened concerns about the risks facing peacekeepers even as the ceasefire holds. France has said it is ready to maintain its commitment on the ground in Lebanon even after the UNIFIL mission is due to end at the close of the year.
The UN Security Council has condemned the attack in the strongest terms and reaffirmed its full support for the mission. Hezbollah, which opposes the Lebanon–Israel talks, has denied involvement.
UNIFIL Chief of Staff Major General Paul Sanzey saluting the coffin of late French UNIFIL peacekeeper Sergeant-Chef Florian Montorio during a tribute ceremony on the tarmac of Beirut's Rafic Hariri International Airport prior to the repatriation of his remains to France, 19 April 2026 AFP - HANDOUT
Beruit open to peace
Alongside France’s diplomatic push, Lebanon’s leadership has signalled a willingness to pursue a negotiated end to the conflict, despite strong domestic opposition.
President Joseph Aoun has said the talks with Israel aim to halt hostilities, end the occupation of southern regions, and enable the Lebanese army to deploy fully along the internationally recognised border.
“I have chosen negotiations,” Aoun said, expressing hope that diplomacy could “save Lebanon” from further devastation.
His stance has exposed deep internal divisions, with Hezbollah sharply criticising the talks, warning that direct negotiations risk undermining national consensus, although it has indicated support for maintaining the ceasefire.
(with newswires)
Beruit open to peace
Alongside France’s diplomatic push, Lebanon’s leadership has signalled a willingness to pursue a negotiated end to the conflict, despite strong domestic opposition.
President Joseph Aoun has said the talks with Israel aim to halt hostilities, end the occupation of southern regions, and enable the Lebanese army to deploy fully along the internationally recognised border.
“I have chosen negotiations,” Aoun said, expressing hope that diplomacy could “save Lebanon” from further devastation.
His stance has exposed deep internal divisions, with Hezbollah sharply criticising the talks, warning that direct negotiations risk undermining national consensus, although it has indicated support for maintaining the ceasefire.
(with newswires)
Shadow of failed 1983 agreement haunts new Israeli-Lebanon talks
EXPLAINER
As Lebanon prepares to resume direct discussions with Israel, the ghost of the May 17 Agreement of 1983 – a deal that was signed but never implemented – is haunting the new round of negotiations. President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam are facing a smear campaign from Hezbollah, which has already rejected any compromise and issued thinly veiled threats against the country's leadership.
Issued on: 23/04/2026 -
FRANCE24
By: Marc DAOU
A deal that never took effect
That security agreement – never implemented – was officially signed by Israel and Lebanon under US auspices at Khaldeh, near Beirut, during the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990). Lebanon, then led by President Amine Gemayel (1982-1988), was at the time simultaneously occupied by both the Israeli and Syrian armies.
Ambassador Antoine Fattal headed the Lebanese delegation, while the Israeli team was led by diplomat David Kimche, with both sides facing US President Ronald Reagan's envoy Morris Draper, Under-Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.
The deal resulted from 35 Israeli-Lebanese meetings in late December 1982 and held alternately in Lebanon and Israel. Comprising a dozen articles, it was meant to be a first step towards lasting peace between the two countries.
Its preamble proclaimed "the termination of the state of war" between the two neighbours, who under article 2 committed to "settle their disputes by peaceful means".
EXPLAINER
As Lebanon prepares to resume direct discussions with Israel, the ghost of the May 17 Agreement of 1983 – a deal that was signed but never implemented – is haunting the new round of negotiations. President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam are facing a smear campaign from Hezbollah, which has already rejected any compromise and issued thinly veiled threats against the country's leadership.
Issued on: 23/04/2026 -
FRANCE24
By: Marc DAOU
This file photo shows Chief Lebanese negotiator, Antoine Fattal, right, chief Israeli negotiator, David Kimche, left, and US Special Envoy Morris Draper, smiling as they shake hands in Khalde, Lebanon, on May 17, 1983. © Bill Foley, AP
Since the announcement of a new round of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel scheduled for Thursday, following a first meeting in Washington in early April, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have been the targets of a smear campaign orchestrated by Hezbollah supporters.
The head of state, who is banking on the talks to secure an Israeli army withdrawal from southern Lebanon and a final demarcation of the shared border, was even the target of an implicit death threat issued by officials from the Shia party.
The threat was taken seriously in Beirut given the pro-Iranian movement’s track record, with several of its members convicted by the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) over the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafic Hariri.
Senior Hezbollah official Nawaf Moussaoui warned in an interview with the party's Al-Manar television channel on Saturday that if the Lebanese president "wants to take decisions unilaterally, he is no more important than Anwar al-Sadat" – a reference to the Egyptian president who was assassinated in 1981, three years after signing a peace deal with Israel at Camp David.
Moussaoui added that any negotiation or agreement between Israel and Lebanon would be "rejected, unrecognised and thrown in the bin, like the May 17, 1983 agreement".
Since the announcement of a new round of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel scheduled for Thursday, following a first meeting in Washington in early April, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have been the targets of a smear campaign orchestrated by Hezbollah supporters.
The head of state, who is banking on the talks to secure an Israeli army withdrawal from southern Lebanon and a final demarcation of the shared border, was even the target of an implicit death threat issued by officials from the Shia party.
The threat was taken seriously in Beirut given the pro-Iranian movement’s track record, with several of its members convicted by the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) over the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafic Hariri.
Senior Hezbollah official Nawaf Moussaoui warned in an interview with the party's Al-Manar television channel on Saturday that if the Lebanese president "wants to take decisions unilaterally, he is no more important than Anwar al-Sadat" – a reference to the Egyptian president who was assassinated in 1981, three years after signing a peace deal with Israel at Camp David.
Moussaoui added that any negotiation or agreement between Israel and Lebanon would be "rejected, unrecognised and thrown in the bin, like the May 17, 1983 agreement".
A deal that never took effect
That security agreement – never implemented – was officially signed by Israel and Lebanon under US auspices at Khaldeh, near Beirut, during the Lebanese civil war (1975-1990). Lebanon, then led by President Amine Gemayel (1982-1988), was at the time simultaneously occupied by both the Israeli and Syrian armies.
Ambassador Antoine Fattal headed the Lebanese delegation, while the Israeli team was led by diplomat David Kimche, with both sides facing US President Ronald Reagan's envoy Morris Draper, Under-Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.
The deal resulted from 35 Israeli-Lebanese meetings in late December 1982 and held alternately in Lebanon and Israel. Comprising a dozen articles, it was meant to be a first step towards lasting peace between the two countries.
Its preamble proclaimed "the termination of the state of war" between the two neighbours, who under article 2 committed to "settle their disputes by peaceful means".
Chief Israeli negotiator David Kimche, right, gestures as he speaks with Antoine Fattal, Lebanon's chief negotiator in Khalde, Lebanon, on March 1, 1983. © Eddie Tamerian, AP
The text provided for the creation of a security zone in southern Lebanon, a timetable for the withdrawal of Israeli forces and a commitment by each side not to allow its territory to be used as a base for "hostile or terrorist activity" against the other.
It even suggested future negotiations on "agreements on the movement of goods, products and persons and their implementation on a non-discriminatory basis".
Although ratified by the Lebanese parliament, the agreement was never promulgated by President Gemayel. In March 1984, it was abrogated by the council of ministers under pressure from Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and his Lebanese allies at the time – Druze warlord Walid Joumblatt and Nabih Berri, head of the Shia Amal militia and Lebanon's parliament speaker since 1992 – all of whom were hostile to any agreement with Israel.
Assad, with no small irony, told Gemayel that the abrogation was "a victory for the peoples of Syria and Lebanon and of the entire Arab nation" and that his country would "remain at Lebanon's side in its struggle for independence and sovereignty" – even as his army remained an occupying force in the country.
In a recent interview with the daily newspaper L'Orient-Le Jour, the former Lebanese president said Israel had not genuinely wanted to implement the May 17 agreement either, accusing it of having added "at the last minute, clauses to the previously negotiated text", including one requiring a simultaneous Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon – effectively giving Damascus veto power.
"It was a way of giving Damascus a veto," he said. "Especially since we had no control over the decision on the withdrawal of the Syrian army."
An Iranian veto?
Asked about this Lebanese-Israeli precedent in relation to the current situation, Sami Nader, director of the Institute of Political Science at Saint Joseph University in Beirut, pointed to a regional context entirely different from that of 1983.
“At the time, only Anwar al-Sadat’s Egypt had signed a peace agreement with Israel,” he explained, noting that the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan later joined the Abraham Accords under US President Donald Trump, while Jordan had signed a peace treaty in 1994. “Today, even Syria, which was once the main obstacle to the May 17 agreement, is ready to sign with the Israelis.”
Syria’s interim president Ahmed al-Charaa said on Friday at a diplomatic forum in Turkey that he was open to direct negotiations with Israel over the occupied Golan Heights if a security deal guaranteed Israeli withdrawal from recently occupied Syrian territories.
"In 1983, Hezbollah, which had just been founded, did not yet have a say in Lebanon. Today it is the main obstacle to such negotiations, as is its Iranian patron, which opposes regional normalisation efforts with Israel," Nader said.
Direct talks between Lebanon and Israel would deprive Tehran of leverage, he added, because Iran wants Lebanon – through Hezbollah – to remain a strategic card.
A 'yellow line' that 'instils doubt'
Nader also noted a "fundamental difference" between the Israeli invasion of 1982 and the current one, "due to the famous yellow line drawn by the Netanyahu government, isolating part of the territory, devastated and emptied of its population".
Israeli authorities say they have drawn a "yellow line" deep inside southern Lebanon, claiming it is intended to protect northern Israeli communities from Hezbollah fire.
In Lebanon, the buffer zone – stretching hundreds of square kilometres from the Mediterranean coast to the Lebanese-Syrian border – is widely seen as a new unilateral border drawn by Israel.
In Gaza, a similar “yellow line” established after the October ceasefire cuts the territory from north to south between a Hamas-controlled zone and another effectively controlled by the Israeli army.
This yellow line "instils doubt about Israeli intentions", Nader insisted. "Because it is reminiscent of a scenario already seen in the Syrian Golan – a scenario of annexation – and no observer can rule out that possibility with the far-right government currently leading Israel."
"Even more than President Gemayel in 1983, President Aoun seems to believe that the only way for Lebanon to rule out such a scenario is to negotiate, that is, to seek peace, and therefore in a sense the disarmament of Hezbollah, in exchange for the conquered territory," he concluded.
"Because the other option, the military one advocated by the Shia party, allows the Israelis to justify their occupation of southern Lebanon."
This article was translated from the original in French by Anaëlle Jonah.
The text provided for the creation of a security zone in southern Lebanon, a timetable for the withdrawal of Israeli forces and a commitment by each side not to allow its territory to be used as a base for "hostile or terrorist activity" against the other.
It even suggested future negotiations on "agreements on the movement of goods, products and persons and their implementation on a non-discriminatory basis".
Although ratified by the Lebanese parliament, the agreement was never promulgated by President Gemayel. In March 1984, it was abrogated by the council of ministers under pressure from Syrian President Hafez al-Assad and his Lebanese allies at the time – Druze warlord Walid Joumblatt and Nabih Berri, head of the Shia Amal militia and Lebanon's parliament speaker since 1992 – all of whom were hostile to any agreement with Israel.
Assad, with no small irony, told Gemayel that the abrogation was "a victory for the peoples of Syria and Lebanon and of the entire Arab nation" and that his country would "remain at Lebanon's side in its struggle for independence and sovereignty" – even as his army remained an occupying force in the country.
In a recent interview with the daily newspaper L'Orient-Le Jour, the former Lebanese president said Israel had not genuinely wanted to implement the May 17 agreement either, accusing it of having added "at the last minute, clauses to the previously negotiated text", including one requiring a simultaneous Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon – effectively giving Damascus veto power.
"It was a way of giving Damascus a veto," he said. "Especially since we had no control over the decision on the withdrawal of the Syrian army."
An Iranian veto?
Asked about this Lebanese-Israeli precedent in relation to the current situation, Sami Nader, director of the Institute of Political Science at Saint Joseph University in Beirut, pointed to a regional context entirely different from that of 1983.
“At the time, only Anwar al-Sadat’s Egypt had signed a peace agreement with Israel,” he explained, noting that the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan later joined the Abraham Accords under US President Donald Trump, while Jordan had signed a peace treaty in 1994. “Today, even Syria, which was once the main obstacle to the May 17 agreement, is ready to sign with the Israelis.”
Syria’s interim president Ahmed al-Charaa said on Friday at a diplomatic forum in Turkey that he was open to direct negotiations with Israel over the occupied Golan Heights if a security deal guaranteed Israeli withdrawal from recently occupied Syrian territories.
"In 1983, Hezbollah, which had just been founded, did not yet have a say in Lebanon. Today it is the main obstacle to such negotiations, as is its Iranian patron, which opposes regional normalisation efforts with Israel," Nader said.
Direct talks between Lebanon and Israel would deprive Tehran of leverage, he added, because Iran wants Lebanon – through Hezbollah – to remain a strategic card.
A 'yellow line' that 'instils doubt'
Nader also noted a "fundamental difference" between the Israeli invasion of 1982 and the current one, "due to the famous yellow line drawn by the Netanyahu government, isolating part of the territory, devastated and emptied of its population".
Israeli authorities say they have drawn a "yellow line" deep inside southern Lebanon, claiming it is intended to protect northern Israeli communities from Hezbollah fire.
In Lebanon, the buffer zone – stretching hundreds of square kilometres from the Mediterranean coast to the Lebanese-Syrian border – is widely seen as a new unilateral border drawn by Israel.
In Gaza, a similar “yellow line” established after the October ceasefire cuts the territory from north to south between a Hamas-controlled zone and another effectively controlled by the Israeli army.
This yellow line "instils doubt about Israeli intentions", Nader insisted. "Because it is reminiscent of a scenario already seen in the Syrian Golan – a scenario of annexation – and no observer can rule out that possibility with the far-right government currently leading Israel."
"Even more than President Gemayel in 1983, President Aoun seems to believe that the only way for Lebanon to rule out such a scenario is to negotiate, that is, to seek peace, and therefore in a sense the disarmament of Hezbollah, in exchange for the conquered territory," he concluded.
"Because the other option, the military one advocated by the Shia party, allows the Israelis to justify their occupation of southern Lebanon."
This article was translated from the original in French by Anaëlle Jonah.
No comments:
Post a Comment