So Daniel sent us this one fresh off the news wire. The White House put out a statement describing a meeting between the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors in Washington as "working level." And Daniel wants to know what that actually means — not just for this specific meeting, but how the whole system works. How do diplomatic talks get graded? What's the hierarchy from a quiet embassy conversation all the way up to a state visit? And what does the label "working level" signal to the people in the room, and to everyone watching from the outside?
This is one of those questions where the answer sounds bureaucratic but is actually doing a lot of work. The vocabulary of diplomacy is a signaling system. Every label is a message.
And the people sending those messages have been calibrating them for centuries. So let's start at the bottom and work up. What is "working level" in the hierarchy?
Working level is essentially the professional layer of diplomacy — career diplomats, attachés, advisers, sometimes deputy assistant secretaries of state on the American side. These are the people who know the files, who've read the cables, who understand the technical substance of whatever is being discussed. The phrase signals that no political principal is in the room. No ambassador sitting across from the foreign minister. Definitely no heads of state.
So it's the diplomatic equivalent of "we're not ready to put our names on this yet."
That's a fair read. It can mean several things simultaneously. It can mean the issue is technical — border demarcation, customs procedures, something that needs expert-level attention rather than political theater. But it can also mean the relationship isn't warm enough yet to elevate the conversation. Or that one or both sides want deniability. If this goes nowhere, nobody important has been seen in the same room.
Which, for Israel and Lebanon, is doing quite a bit of lifting. These are two countries that technically don't have diplomatic relations.
Right, and that's not a minor footnote. Lebanon and Israel are in a formal state of war — or were, depending on which legal framework you're applying post the November twenty twenty-four ceasefire agreement. So any meeting at all is already unusual. The fact that it's being described as "working level" is actually, in that context, almost an understatement in the other direction — the label is doing double duty. It's saying "this is significant enough to acknowledge" while simultaneously saying "don't read too much into it."
The diplomatic equivalent of posting a photo but turning off comments.
I love that. The White House framing it that way is deliberate. They're the ones choosing the vocabulary. When the Americans describe a bilateral meeting using State Department taxonomy, they're essentially setting the ceiling for how everyone else is supposed to interpret it.
Let's build up the ladder properly then. Working level is the floor. What comes next?
Above working level you start getting into what's sometimes called senior officials talks. This is where you might have a deputy minister, an undersecretary, someone with political appointment rather than career status. The substance gets more politically sensitive, and crucially, the person in the room has the authority to make commitments — or at least to signal which commitments their principal might be willing to make.
And there's a real difference there. A career diplomat can convey a position. A political appointee can shift one.
That's the distinction that matters operationally. Senior officials talks are often where the real negotiating happens, actually. The state visit is the ceremony; the senior officials talks are where the deal gets built. Think about the Oslo Accords — the back-channel talks in Norway that actually produced the framework were conducted by people who weren't foreign ministers, who weren't in the public eye. Yair Hirschfeld and Ron Pundak on the Israeli side were academics. Abu Ala was a PLO finance official. Not household names. But they had enough proximity to principal decision-makers to make the thing real.
Which is a feature, not a bug. If it blows up, it blew up at a level where nobody had to publicly fail.
The technical term for that kind of arrangement is sometimes "exploratory" or "pre-negotiation." It's distinct from formal negotiation because neither side has committed to an outcome yet. You're essentially testing whether the other side's positions are compatible enough to justify the political cost of being seen at the table.
Okay, so we've got working level, senior officials, and then what — ministerial?
Ministerial is the next step. This is foreign minister to foreign minister, or in some contexts defense minister to defense minister depending on the subject matter. At this level, the meeting itself is news. The readout — meaning the official statement about what was discussed — gets scrutinized. The handshake photo, if there is one, gets analyzed. Ministerial meetings are where governments signal that they're in active, serious engagement. Not resolved, but engaged.
And the absence of a photo can be as meaningful as the photo itself.
Very much so. There's a whole grammar to what gets released and what doesn't. Whether the meeting was "frank" — which in diplomatic language almost always means there was significant disagreement. Whether it was "constructive" — which usually means polite but not particularly productive. Whether there was a "joint statement" — which means both sides agreed on something, even if it's just the format of future talks.
I want to come back to that vocabulary because it's fascinating. But first — above ministerial?
Above ministerial you're getting into head-of-government territory. A phone call between prime ministers or presidents is already a significant step up. A bilateral meeting on the sidelines of, say, the G7 or the United Nations General Assembly is a tier above that. And then at the very top of the pyramid is the state visit.
Which is its own entire ritual.
It is. The state visit is the maximum expression of diplomatic recognition and warmth between two countries. And it's incredibly choreographed. In the American context, a state visit to Washington involves a formal arrival ceremony on the South Lawn — the twenty-one gun salute, the honor guard, the national anthems. There's a state dinner. There are joint statements and often joint press conferences. The president accompanies the visiting head of state through multiple public engagements. The whole thing is designed to be seen, domestically and internationally.
And the guest list at the state dinner is its own signal.
Exactly — well, I mean, yes, it really is. Who gets invited to the dinner tells you something about what relationship the host country is trying to build around the visit. You might see members of the diaspora community, business leaders, cultural figures. It's a soft power exercise wrapped inside a hard diplomatic moment.
By the way — today's episode is being written by Claude Sonnet four point six, which feels appropriate given we're talking about a topic where the words chosen are doing enormous work.
Ha, that's true. Claude is being quite precise about the vocabulary today.
So below the state visit — there's also the official working visit, which I think people conflate with the state visit but they're different?
They are different, and this is where it gets granular in a way most coverage doesn't bother with. A state visit is the full ceremonial package — the South Lawn arrival, the state dinner, the twenty-one gun salute. An official working visit is a bilateral meeting at head-of-government level but without the full ceremony. So you might have a one-on-one with the president, a working lunch, a joint statement, but no state dinner, no arrival ceremony. It signals genuine engagement and seriousness without the full pageantry.
Which can actually be more useful if you want to get things done rather than perform things being done.
That's a real tension in high-level diplomacy. The more ceremonial the meeting, the more the substance can get crowded out by the optics. There's a version of the state visit where both sides spend so much energy on the theater that the actual negotiating happens in the thirty minutes before the press conference, if at all.
And then there's the UN General Assembly sideline meeting, which is its own category entirely.
UNGA sidelines are fascinating because they operate on a compressed timeline and create this extraordinary density of diplomatic activity. Every September, most of the world's foreign ministers and many heads of state are in New York within a two-week window. The formal sessions are almost secondary. The real action is the bilateral meetings that get scheduled in hotel rooms and conference suites around Midtown Manhattan. And those meetings get graded on the same hierarchy — is it a principal meeting or a senior officials meeting, is there a joint statement, is there even a readout at all?
The absence of a readout being its own readout.
Precisely. If two countries meet and one side releases a readout and the other doesn't, or the readouts are significantly different in tone or content, that gap itself is news. It tells you something about where the relationship actually is versus where either side wants to project it to be.
Let's talk about the Lebanon-Israel context specifically, because the meeting Daniel flagged is interesting precisely because of what it's happening against. What's the actual state of things between Jerusalem and Beirut right now?
So the ceasefire that went into effect in late November twenty twenty-four ended the active phase of the conflict in southern Lebanon. The terms involved Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and Hezbollah pulling back north of the Litani River, with the Lebanese Armed Forces deploying to the south. There's been a monitoring mechanism involving the United States and France. But the ceasefire is a ceasefire, not a peace agreement. There's no normalization, no formal diplomatic recognition, no resolution of underlying disputes including the border demarcation in several contested areas.
So what's the meeting actually about, do we think? What's on the agenda at "working level"?
The most likely candidates are the border demarcation questions — there are specific points along the Blue Line, which is the UN-drawn line of withdrawal from two thousand, that both sides dispute. There are also questions about the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution one seven zero one, which has been the framework document for south Lebanon since two thousand and six and which the ceasefire was supposed to reinforce. And there are probably conversations about the monitoring mechanism itself — what the Americans and French are doing, what the Lebanese army's deployment looks like on the ground.
So genuine technical substance that justifies "working level" in the literal sense, not just as a political hedge.
Probably both. It's not either-or. The substance is real — these are complicated boundary questions where you want people who know the maps in the room. But the political hedge is also real. Lebanon has domestic politics around the question of any engagement with Israel that are extremely sensitive. Hezbollah's political wing still has representation in Lebanese institutions. The Lebanese government has to be careful about how any meeting gets characterized domestically.
And on the Israeli side, there are also internal politics around what normalization with Lebanon even looks like before any broader resolution.
Right. So "working level" is doing diplomatic work on multiple audiences simultaneously. It's telling the Lebanese public: this is not normalization, this is technical. It's telling the Israeli public: this is serious engagement, not a symbolic gesture. It's telling the international community: the ceasefire is being implemented through real mechanisms. And it's telling Hezbollah and Iran: this is not a threat to your position, don't overreact.
One statement, four audiences. That's efficient.
That's diplomacy at its best, honestly. The language is engineered to be readable differently depending on who's reading it.
Let's talk about the multilateral layer, because bilateral is one thing, but a lot of the significant diplomatic action on Lebanon happens through international forums and mechanisms. How do those fit into the hierarchy?
Great question. The UN Security Council is the apex of multilateral diplomatic forums for security issues. A Security Council resolution — like one seven zero one — carries legal weight under international law that no bilateral statement can match. But the Security Council is also a political body, so what it can actually do is constrained by the veto dynamics of the permanent five members. The US, UK, France are generally aligned on Lebanon. Russia and China are wildcards on any resolution that touches on Israeli interests.
Below the Security Council?
You have the UN General Assembly, which can pass resolutions but they're not binding — they're expressions of international opinion. Then you have regional bodies: the Arab League, which Lebanon is a member of and Israel is not; the European Union, which has been deeply involved in Lebanon through UNIFIL, the UN peacekeeping force in the south. And then you have ad hoc mechanisms like the one the US and France are co-chairing for ceasefire monitoring, which is not formally a multilateral body but functions like one.
UNIFIL is worth spending a moment on because it's a real presence on the ground and it complicates the picture.
UNIFIL — the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon — has been there since nineteen seventy-eight. The "Interim" in the name is doing a lot of work given that it's been forty-eight years. There are about ten thousand troops from dozens of countries. Their mandate under one seven zero one is to support the Lebanese Armed Forces in establishing authority in the south and to confirm Israeli withdrawal. In practice, their effectiveness has been contested. They were not able to prevent Hezbollah from rearming in the years between two thousand six and two thousand twenty-four. But they're a physical presence that matters for any conversation about implementation.
And any working-level meeting between Israeli and Lebanese officials is happening in the shadow of all of that — the UNIFIL presence, the ceasefire monitoring mechanism, the Security Council resolutions.
The bilateral conversation is nested inside the multilateral framework. You can't really separate them. What the ambassadors discuss in Washington has to be consistent with what Lebanon can defend at the Security Council and what Israel can defend to its own public and to the Americans.
Let's come back to the vocabulary question because I think this is useful for listeners trying to read diplomatic coverage. You mentioned "frank" versus "constructive." What are the other key phrases?
So there's a whole lexicon. "Frank exchange of views" almost always means significant disagreement. "Candid" is similar — it suggests people said things they wouldn't say in public. "Productive" is slightly more positive but still vague — it usually means the meeting happened and nothing blew up. "Constructive" is the diplomatic positive — it suggests progress without claiming specific outcomes. "Historic" is reserved for genuine breakthroughs and gets overused, which dilutes it.
And "agreement to meet again" as the outcome of a meeting.
That one is both a floor and sometimes a genuine achievement. If two parties that weren't talking have agreed to meet again, that's real. But if parties that have been meeting for years produce only an agreement to meet again, that's a signal of stagnation.
What about "exploratory talks" versus "negotiations"?
That distinction matters enormously and is often deliberately blurred. Exploratory talks are pre-negotiation — you're feeling out whether a negotiation is possible. Negotiations imply that both sides have agreed there's something to negotiate toward. Calling something "exploratory" gives you an exit ramp. Calling it "negotiations" raises expectations and, if it fails, constitutes a visible failure. Governments choose those words very carefully.
And sometimes choose them differently from each other, which is its own information.
The asymmetric readout problem. One side calls it negotiations, the other calls it preliminary discussions. The gap tells you which side is more invested in the process and which side is managing expectations downward.
There's also the question of venue, which I don't think gets enough attention. The choice of where a meeting happens is part of the signal.
Hugely so. A meeting in Washington signals American involvement and patronage. A meeting in a neutral third country — historically places like Oslo, Geneva, Doha, Muscat — signals that neither side wants to be seen as going to the other's territory. A meeting in one side's capital is a significant concession or gesture by the side that's traveling. When Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem in nineteen seventy-seven, the venue itself was the message — it was recognition of Israeli sovereignty over its capital before a single word was negotiated.
And the Israeli-Lebanese meeting being in Washington is significant for the same reason. It's on neutral ground, mediated by the Americans. Neither side had to go to the other.
And the Americans being the host adds their weight to the proceedings. It's not just Israel and Lebanon talking. It's Israel and Lebanon talking under American auspices, which means American credibility is partially attached to the outcome. That's leverage for both sides and constraint for both sides simultaneously.
Let's talk about what "working level" meetings can and can't produce. Because there's a version of this conversation where someone says, well, if it's just working level, nothing significant can come out of it. Is that right?
No, and that's one of the things most coverage gets wrong. Working-level meetings are where agreements get built. The Camp David Accords in nineteen seventy-eight — the summit between Begin and Sadat and Carter — was the culmination of months of working-level engagement where the actual text was drafted. The summit was where the political principals put their names on something. But the thing they put their names on was built at working level.
So the hierarchy isn't about where decisions get made. It's about where decisions get announced.
That's a really clean way to put it. The decision-making can happen at any level. The announcement — the political commitment, the public signature — that's what requires elevation to principal level. Working-level meetings can produce draft agreements, shared understandings, technical annexes, maps with agreed-upon lines. All of that can be real and significant without a single foreign minister being in the room.
Which means when people dismiss a meeting as "just working level," they're missing something.
They're missing the architecture of how diplomacy actually functions. The working-level meeting between Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors in Washington might produce nothing. Or it might produce a shared understanding about one contested point on the Blue Line that then becomes the foundation for a broader agreement six months later. You can't know from the label.
What you can know from the label is where both sides are politically comfortable being seen.
Right. And right now, "working level" is where both sides are comfortable. That's actually meaningful information. It means neither side is ready to absorb the domestic political cost of something more visible. But it also means both sides thought this meeting was worth having. That's not nothing.
So what should listeners actually take from the White House's specific word choice here? If you're reading that statement — "working level" — what are you learning?
A few things. First, the US is actively involved in the implementation of the ceasefire framework, not just passively monitoring it. The fact that this meeting happened in Washington, described by the White House, means the Americans are tracking this closely. Second, there's enough of a working relationship between Israeli and Lebanese officials that a meeting is possible — which wasn't true for a long time and is still not trivial given the formal state of war. Third, the issues being discussed are substantive enough to require expert-level engagement, which suggests real implementation questions are on the table rather than just symbolic gestures.
And fourth — the ceiling is being deliberately kept low for now, which tells you something about where the relationship is and how cautious both sides are about moving faster than their domestic politics can absorb.
That fourth point is probably the most important one for understanding the trajectory. Diplomatic relationships tend to escalate incrementally. You go from no contact to back-channel to working level to senior officials to ministerial. Each step requires the previous step to have been survivable domestically. "Working level" in this context isn't the end of the story. It might be the first legible chapter.
There's something almost geological about it. Very slow, but moving.
The ceasefire itself was the seismic event. The working-level meeting is the adjustment afterward. You're watching the landscape settle.
Alright, practical layer — for listeners who want to read diplomatic coverage more intelligently, what are the things to watch for?
First, pay attention to who is in the room. The title of the most senior person present tells you a lot about how seriously each side is taking the meeting. If one side sends a deputy minister and the other sends a working-level diplomat, that asymmetry is news.
Second?
Read both readouts if both sides release them. The differences in language, emphasis, what one side mentions and the other doesn't — that's where you find the actual state of the relationship. Journalists often just run with one readout, usually the American one. The other side's characterization of the same meeting can be completely different.
Third?
Watch the venue and the format. A bilateral meeting on the sidelines of a multilateral forum is different from a dedicated bilateral visit. The dedicated visit signals that the relationship is worth its own moment, not just a slot in a busy schedule. And watch whether there's a joint statement or separate statements. Joint statements require agreement on language, which is hard. Separate statements are easier but less meaningful.
And fourth — don't confuse ceremony with substance or assume their absence means nothing is happening.
The most consequential diplomatic moments are often the quietest ones. The back-channel that produced Oslo had almost no public footprint while it was happening. The working-level meeting that sets up the deal that gets signed at the summit — that meeting often goes unnoticed. "Working level" is not a dismissal. It's a description of where in the process you are.
And sometimes where you are in the process is exactly where you need to be.
Given where Israel and Lebanon were eighteen months ago, a working-level meeting in Washington is not nothing. It's a particular kind of something.
Alright. Forward-looking thought to close on?
The thing I'm watching is whether this working-level engagement produces any movement on the border demarcation questions before the ceasefire monitoring mechanism gets reviewed. These arrangements tend to have a shelf life — the political will that created them fades, the international attention moves elsewhere. If the working-level meetings don't produce enough shared understanding to anchor something more durable, the window might close before the architecture gets built.
And if it does produce something durable, we'll probably only find out about it when someone at ministerial level announces it as if it appeared from nowhere.
That's how it almost always works. The invisible scaffolding, and then the ribbon cutting.
Thanks to Hilbert Flumingtop for keeping the whole operation running behind the scenes. And a word to Modal — the serverless GPU platform that powers our pipeline and charges us for exactly what we use, which given my napping schedule is appreciated.
This has been My Weird Prompts. If you want to find all two thousand one hundred and fifty-four episodes, we're at myweirdprompts.com.
Until next time.
