In our world there are small and large victories. Even if the prisoner swap is indeed a victory for Lebanon, surely it is the former rather than the latter.

Why do I say this? Because the people of Lebanon still live in a state of insecurity. They do not know when the next Lebanese will be taken by Israel, or when more Lebanese blood will be shed; the same goes for Israel.

Fear and uncertainty are the earmark of war. The only true national success that Lebanon can achieve vis-à-vis Israel (and vice-versa) is lasting peace through a signed agreement. Why? Because only such an agreement can provide the lasting feeling of calm and security that both Lebanese and Israelis are entitled to.

A leader who views a prisoner swap, favorable as it may be to his side, as an ultimate victory sells his people short and deprives them of the real thing. To this day, nations in Western Europe mark May 8 – the end of World War II – as a national holiday. Millions took to the streets on that day in 1945, celebrating the end of six vicious years of war. Prisoner swaps took place subsequently, but were seen as a necessary means of achieving lasting peace, not as an end in and of themselves.

Assuming that the media outlets are correct in informing us that the prisoner deal will be completed during the coming week, it is high time to ask ourselves: what next? Do we wait idly by until the next round of violence imposes itself on our two nations, bringing death and destruction, or do we initiate a process that will end this vicious cycle once and for all?

An answer to this question was given by the Italian foreign minister, Franco Frattini, during his visit to Jerusalem this week. The foreign minister conveyed the willingness of Italy to play the role of mediator in direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel.

The response to the Italian initiative sounded very different in Beirut and in Jerusalem. Israeli President Shimon Peres said that Israel has always offered its hand in peace to those who want it, adding that he has always believed "that there are no contradicting interests between Israel and Lebanon."

Fouad Siniora, on the other hand, informed the Italian ambassador that he would not be entering any talks with Israel. No ifs, no buts, a straight-out, resounding "No."

There are two possible explanations for Siniora's reaction. The first is that Siniora really is interested in peace with Israel, but is unable to admit it for political reasons. One could argue that Siniora understands that peace is the only viable way to ensure Lebanon's long-lasting security, and retrieve its once-thriving economy.

The problem is that he is in the midst of forming a new government and re-building national unity, which means he is currently unable to make controversial statements. One day, perhaps with the assistance of Western allies, Siniora could be brought to implement his true policy goals. His past statements rejecting the need for war with Israel and criticizing Hezbollah for it would support this view.

A second explanation, perhaps more pessimistic, would be that Siniora is genuinely uninterested in peace with Israel. In this case, however, he owes his people some answers. In order to deprive the Lebanese of the invaluable asset of peace along with the benefits that come with it, Siniora must counter Peres' arguments. Why do Israel and Lebanon's interests not converge? What prevents Lebanon from entering into direct negotiations with Israel?

Here are some points for Siniora to consider:

1. Lebanon and Israel are both modern, Western-oriented countries. Both countries share religiously and culturally diverse populations. Egypt and Jordan, who claimed territorial disputes with Israel and suffered through bloody wars over them, have both attained peace with Israel. Lebanon, which has no meaningful territorial dispute with Israel and much less historic animosity, should follow suit.

2. Israel and Lebanon both share an interest in quelling Syria's influence in the region, and maintaining Lebanon strong and free from foreign intervention in its internal politics. A peace treaty with Israel would strengthen Lebanon politically and economically and ensure its full sovereignty. Even if Israel eventually reaches a peace agreement with Syria, it will be under conditions more favorable to Lebanon.

3. A peace agreement with Israel would strengthen the moderate forces within Lebanon who seek stability in the region, and weaken those – such as Hezbollah – who seek to destabilize the region in the bidding of Iran.

In the rapidly changing Middle East, windows of opportunity tend to shut quickly. There may not be a second chance for Israel and Lebanon.

--

Elhanan Miller is a Legacy Heritage fellow working at The Knesset and a student in the Department of Islam and Middle Eastern Studies at Hebrew University, Jerusalem.