A member of Israel’s parliament has formed a new legislative group dedicated to exploring the possibility of future peace and diplomatic relations with Lebanon, making the case that Israel should reach out directly to Lebanese communities seeking stability and freedom from armed group control.
Dr. Akram Hasson leads the newly established Caucus for Peace Between Israel and Lebanon, which he chairs. He tells The Media Line that his motivation stems from years of observing what he views as a nation held captive by Hezbollah’s influence.
“Lebanon was taken hostage by Hezbollah,” Hasson told The Media Line. “It does whatever it wants there. It destroyed the Switzerland of the Middle East. It threatens Lebanon’s president, it threatens the government, and of course it harms the residents of northern Israel.”
The parliamentary group has modest structure but broad ambitions, calling for diplomatic, economic, and civilian cooperation, assistance for northern Israeli communities, and a wider regional approach to shared security threats. Hasson notes that his proposal to create the caucus received approval within days of submission, which he interprets as evidence that fellow lawmakers recognize the value of maintaining political dialogue beyond the current reality of rockets, evacuations, and border conflict.
His position centers on viewing Lebanon through the lens of its various communities rather than solely through its armed groups – communities he believes have genuine interests in stability, economic recovery, and reduced Iranian influence in their country.
“The Lebanese people, in the latest survey, the Druze, more than 80%, want peace and relations with the State of Israel,” Hasson said. “Seventy-two percent of the Christians also want peace with the State of Israel, and there are Sunnis there who want it too. So the time has come for us to strengthen this alliance.”
Hasson clarifies that the caucus does not replace official government diplomacy or indicate that formal negotiations are currently happening. Rather, he describes it as a political and public platform designed to provide legitimacy and visibility to Lebanese figures who might support normalization but fear retaliation from Hezbollah. His stated objective is encouraging them to speak more openly, both within Lebanon and among Lebanese communities living abroad.
“I want to encourage every person on the Lebanese side who seeks peace and believes in peace to stand up and say what he thinks, like in the latest survey, and begin to apply pressure,” Hasson said. “Because in the end, if the people want peace and security and freedom, nothing can stand in the way of that will.”
The political complexities are clear. Israel and Lebanon have no peace treaty, and Hezbollah remains the primary armed force along the Lebanese side of their shared border. For Israelis living in the north, this has created concrete challenges. The ongoing conflict has transformed border towns and surrounding communities into an active front line, featuring evacuations, missile and rocket attacks, Israeli military strikes in Lebanon, and persistent concerns about escalation.
Hasson contends that precisely because of this instability, Israel should start preparing for the possibility that border dynamics may not always remain as they are today. He mentions that his first speech in Arabic from the parliament podium was addressed to the Lebanese people and demonstrated respect for a society he characterizes as educated, sophisticated, and unwilling to be defined by terrorism.
“The Lebanese people are a people of books, a people of culture,” he said. “They do not want terrorism, and they do not want Hezbollah there. They are suffering terribly from them.”
The parliament member’s vision remains far from official policy at this point. He speaks openly about a future where embassies might operate in Beirut and Tel Aviv, connecting this concept to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s broader rhetoric about a “new Middle East.” Hasson suggests that if regional alignments continue shifting, Lebanon could eventually join a larger group of countries engaging Israel openly.
However, the most significant aspect of his proposal may not be the diplomatic end goal, but rather the comparison he makes with Israel’s existing peace agreements. When asked whether relations with Lebanon might one day mirror Israel’s relationship with Jordan, Hasson offered a more ambitious assessment.
“In my opinion, normalization with Lebanon would be better than with Jordan,” he said.
He contends that the peace with Jordan, while strategically valuable, has remained distant and unbalanced. Israel provides Jordan with water, Israeli business leaders have invested there, and Israeli tourists travel east, Hasson notes, but the relationship has not created the type of mutual public acceptance he would hope to see in a future agreement.
“You do not see one tourist from Jordan in Israel,” Hasson said. “They do not contribute anything to us. On the contrary.”
For Hasson, the key difference lies between Hezbollah and Lebanon as a whole. He highlights particularly Druze and Christian voices, as well as historical memories of contact across the border, including periods when Lebanese workers entered Israel.
“Lebanon is a completely different people,” he said. “They do not have that hatred. They do not teach jihad.”
Yet there exists a significant gap between frustration with Hezbollah and public support for normalization with Israel. In Lebanon, even people who resent Hezbollah’s power may avoid expressing anything that resembles support for peace with Israel. War memories, internal Lebanese politics, the Palestinian issue, and fear of being accused of collaboration all influence the situation.
Hasson does not claim Lebanon is prepared to sign an agreement immediately. His argument is more focused: Israel should not wait for official diplomacy to exist before communicating with Lebanese who may already be thinking differently.
The caucus documentation outlines potential areas of cooperation, including tourism, trade, infrastructure, industry, energy, agriculture, innovation, environmental collaboration, and support for local authorities in northern Israel. Hasson believes both sides could benefit from a practical peace centered on economic recovery and border stability.
“We can contribute to Lebanon’s economy,” he said. “It is win-win. Everyone, in the end, will bless this important step.”
He also frames the issue as one that should not be limited to either the Israeli right or left. Peace, he argues, can gain support across Israel’s political spectrum if presented not as rhetoric, but as a security achievement that protects Israeli citizens and weakens Iranian-backed terrorism.
“The people of Israel know how to unite and rise above themselves when there is real peace, and when they know it will bring security to all the residents of the State of Israel,” Hasson said. “I know many people in Israel, both on the left and on the right, who, when they hear about peace, real peace and not talk and slogans, will support it.”
The initiative emerges at a time when the concept of “peace” has largely vanished from Israel’s wartime political discourse, replaced by terms such as deterrence, victory, pressure, disarmament, and security control. Hasson attempts to reintroduce it, but in a format anchored less in traditional peace advocacy and more in the language of regional power, anti-Iranian alignment, and Israeli security interests.
This may represent the caucus’s political opportunity. It does not ask Israelis to ignore Hezbollah. It begins with Hezbollah as the primary obstacle. It does not present Lebanon as already prepared for peace. It argues that segments of Lebanon may be ready, or could become ready, if they are strengthened and if Hezbollah is forced to retreat from its current position.
“We are stronger,” Hasson said. “We are the only ones standing against Hezbollah. And in the end, we can eliminate this terrorism, because the Lebanese state, as a state, as a government, as a presidency, cannot do much against Hezbollah.”
The caucus remains a parliamentary initiative, not a diplomatic process. Its significance lies elsewhere: an Israeli parliament member is attempting to bring into the legislature a conversation that typically remains in private meetings, research forums, or military assessments. Hasson wants parliament to address directly the possibility that Lebanon’s future may not be permanently connected to Hezbollah’s present.
Whether that message can reach Lebanese audiences, and whether anyone there can safely respond to it, remains unclear. Hasson believes the situation is less rigid than it appears.
“We want a real Middle East,” he said. “A Middle East without terrorists, without people who believe in jihad and brainwashing, and cause enormous damage to the Arab and Muslim population in the world. That is the final goal.”
