An American official said Thursday that Israel had withdrawn from part of the territory it seized in southern Lebanon as a “goodwill gesture” to the government in Beirut. Speaking to Reuters, the official said the Lebanese army now needs to enter the area Israel reportedly left. The IDF said there had been no withdrawals in recent days, and a senior Lebanese official also denied the claim to Reuters.
The statement came after the fifth round of Israeli-Lebanese talks, held Wednesday at the US State Department. The sides discussed pilot areas from which the IDF would withdraw and hand control to the Lebanese army, with the goal of keeping those zones free of Hezbollah fighters. The talks were marked by sharp disputes over the pace of any pullback and where it should begin. Israel is preparing for limited initial withdrawals, but opposes leaving all of southern Lebanon.
On Wednesday, both sides presented maps and each proposed pilot areas it believed should be the starting point. On the second day of the round, officers from both countries met at the Pentagon, and the contacts are set to continue Thursday. Israeli officials were described as increasingly pessimistic, amid the inclusion of a related clause in the US memorandum of understanding with Iran and an American promise to create a mechanism to prevent friction in Lebanon.
Israel says the US administration is sending mixed signals. According to Jerusalem, Vice President J. D. Vance and President Donald Trump’s envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are pushing Israel to stop strikes across Lebanon, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio is more sympathetic to the Israeli position. Meanwhile, Hezbollah accused Israel on Wednesday night of violating the ceasefire after, it said, the IDF deliberately hit Lebanese civilians checking their homes in the village of Ruman. Hezbollah said it was still committed to the ceasefire and was monitoring violations, but did not threaten retaliation. Israeli Ambassador Yehiel Leiter said earlier this week that the negotiations were, in his words, “a train wreck,” arguing that the friction-prevention mechanism could harm peace efforts.
