Lebanon's parallel tracks: Rome talks and an unresolved port case
Withdrawal talks in Rome and the Beirut port blast case remaining unresolved after six years place Lebanon's external security and domestic accountability burdens side by side.
Geopolitics··Evening
The seventh round defines pilot zones
The seventh round of US-mediated Israel-Lebanon talks opened in Rome for a planned three-day programme. Al Jazeera reported that the agenda covers selecting new pilot areas for an Israeli withdrawal and completing the Lebanese army's deployment plan for Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh, the first pilot zone. Bint Jbeil and Khiam are possible locations for further zones. The mechanism implements the framework agreed on 26 June. Lebanon sent current and former ambassadors, a brigadier-general, a legal adviser and a land-surveying expert; Israel sent high-level political and military officials. The report does not indicate that Hezbollah is participating. Negotiations are taking place while Israel holds a buffer strip described as a 10 km “Yellow Line” inside Lebanon and, according to the report, occupies close to one-fifth of the country. More than 4,000 people have been killed since fighting resumed in March and more than a million have been displaced. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the buffer zone will remain until Hezbollah disarms and the threat ends. The round turns the framework into an implementation negotiation over named places and army deployment while withdrawal, disarmament and security conditions remain unresolved.[1]
A sixth year for the port case
Beirut marked the sixth anniversary of the port explosion while the investigation had reached no verdict. Ammonium nitrate stored at the port exploded on 4 August 2020, killing more than 200 people. Al Jazeera reported that no one had been held accountable despite leadership changes promising judicial independence, while families kept pressing the authorities. The anniversary arrived amid another wave of destruction in the south. A World Bank estimate cited in the report put losses from the 2024 escalation at 11 billion dollars and the potential reconstruction bill at 20 billion dollars. More than a million people were displaced. That burden falls on an economy that collapsed in 2019, where depositors still cannot access their savings. The report says reconstruction aid is being used to press for Hezbollah's disarmament. The ceasefire offers no guarantee against renewed fighting, and the agreement sets no timetable for an Israeli withdrawal. Haidar Mudayhi, head of al-Mansouri municipality, said Israeli forces throw stun grenades whenever people try to reach certain areas. The unresolved investigation remains part of Lebanon's present institutional burden, joining families seeking justice with displacement, reconstruction needs and depositors' continuing hardship.[2]
External security and domestic accountability
The two developments show the Lebanese state's simultaneous but different responsibilities. The Rome process translates the June framework into named locations and Lebanese army deployment. Government representatives, military officers, a legal adviser and a land-surveying expert are working on implementation. Yet Hezbollah is not reported to be participating, and Israel links the buffer zone to disarmament and the persistence of a threat, leaving the wider dispute unresolved. The Beirut anniversary highlights a task the state has not completed at home: families who lost relatives are still waiting for a verdict six years later. New destruction, displacement and reconstruction needs do not remove that demand; they require public institutions to work across security, justice and economic recovery. The army deployment discussed in Rome concerns management of the external conflict, while the port investigation concerns domestic accountability. The reports establish no direct causal link between them. Together, however, they illustrate Lebanon's state-capacity challenge: the government is trying to implement withdrawal zones and complete a legal process that would assign responsibility for an earlier catastrophe. In both agendas, institutional credibility depends on carrying decisions into effect, on the ground or in court.[1], [2]
Related columns
For more information on this topic, you can read the related columns.
