This week’s conclusion in Rome of a sixth round of US-brokered talks between Lebanon and Israel has given observers some idea of the framework that is being presented as a pathway to de-escalation. Lebanese security and political officials told The National on Wednesday that military delegations will meet in the coming days to set a timetable for establishing two pilot zones in south Lebanon from which the Israeli military will eventually withdraw.

Given the destruction inflicted on Lebanon over the past months, even such modest progress seems welcome. “The path is not paved and holds difficulties,” Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said on Wednesday, “but hope is great for achieving results that end the bloodshed.”

However, even as delegates negotiated, the Israeli army kept up daily attacks on southern Lebanon – including near the pilot zones envisioned in the Rome framework. Homes have been demolished in the dozens of towns and villages Israel currently occupies amid claims from its military that it is detonating Hezbollah infrastructure. In fact, much of what is happening too closely resembles another traumatic time from Lebanon’s past: the 1980s invasion and years-long occupation by Israel.

Then, as now, the Lebanese state lacked full control over its territory and Israel justified its violent incursion on security grounds. Like today, the result was the creation of a “security zone” that carved out swathes of Lebanese territory, ruined many Lebanese lives and entrenched long-term instability. Then too, pressure was placed on Beirut to deliver security outcomes that it was structurally incapable of guaranteeing.

Fast forward to 2026 and today’s Lebanese government is being asked to enforce commitments across the south while Iran-backed Hezbollah continues to carry out military activities. At the same time, Israel continues to operate with near-total military freedom and faces few constraints. An example of that confidence could be seen last week when Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said the country's forces would remain in southern Lebanon for “as long as necessary”.

There is a real risk that history is being ignored. Agreements that assume a capable, sovereign Lebanese state are disconnected from realities on the ground. Hezbollah’s continued dominance and opposition to the talks undermine Beirut’s authority and erode any framework that depends on national enforcement. Meanwhile, there are no clear guarantees of a full Israeli withdrawal or of meaningful co-operation on security measures.

Much responsibility lies with the US, which is sponsoring this diplomatic effort. Washington belatedly pressed Israel to restrain its military operations, but it must go further. Clearer guarantees are needed, both on Israeli withdrawal and on a framework that ensures mutual security rather than one-sided obligations. Suggestions that Syria could send its forces to stabilise the situation are unserious and risk further complicating an already volatile landscape.

The Rome talks, while necessary, are no substitute for the restoration of Lebanese state authority. Scenarios in which Beirut is reduced to a marginalised administration akin to the Palestinian Authority, or the country is repeatedly bombed so as to resemble Gaza are unacceptable. Without a change in direction, the current trajectory points towards a troubling outcome that the Lebanese people have seen before, reliving a past of violence and occupation that should have been consigned to history.