iloubnan.info: These days, wars are not necessarily between states, parties involved can be groups which are independent from legitimate states and sometimes transnational. What is the value of diplomatic negotiation when the real problem is not necessarily among states?
Ghassan Schbley: This is a big problem in negotiation actually. The problem is that we have states and we have groups. Lebanon is a separate case because Lebanon recognizes Hezbollah as a resistance movement and Lebanon negotiates by using this tool. However, in other states it’s difficult to manage both of them. Let’s say it’s a diplomatic game. 

And do these groups weaken the value of negotiation and decisions taken by “official” authorities?
I think it can either weaken or strengthen the negotiation. It really depends on the cases and the negotiations. For example when you have a successful resistant group or militant group, it might be successful for the state fostering this resistance to say “we got this land back because of what happened on the ground and if we didn’t have this type of resistance, we couldn’t have gotten this land back.” It can play both ways. If you have a strong figure in the Arab world or somewhere else, they can deliver. Like Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. He is not in government but he is the most famous and admired Arab leader according to a poll conducted by the Brookings Institution. In case he says “I want to deliver peace”, people will accept it. He is not a statesman but he could impose it on Lebanon if he wants. 

Do you think that the 2006 war in Lebanon and its outcome had an impact on future negotiations to solve the Arab-Israeli process?
Yes it has an impact. To what extent, we don’t know. However the 2006 war created deterrence between Lebanon and Israel or Mainly between Hezbollah and Israel. So now Israel has to think before engaging any war in Lebanon and also Hezbollah has to think before going into Israel. This might have an impact but we don’t know yet. 

And did the violence in Gaza change international opinion concerning Israel?
It is changing, we’ve seen the Goldstone report, but again, it’s too early to say. However the international community will have access to more information, especially in the US. People have more access to talk to the people, to look at what’s happening, internet is helping all this. So yes, the Gaza war has changed the perception in the US but it’s too early to say what will happen. 

The Middle-East conflict is losing in importance in Washington because of other priorities such as the war in Iraq or, on a local level, the issue of health care of the financial crisis. But even before all that, was ever a real priority?
It has always been a priority bit not a top priority. However the Obama administration said it was going to be a “top priority” so people had that perception of it. The US is really committed to finding a solution. However, the President has to deal with a lot of issue, internal issues with elections coming up in 2012. Something very important is that there is change inside the US. Look for example at J Street, to have a pro-Israeli lobby that promotes a two-state solution that is something new. So there might be new priorities but let’s see what will happen.