Lebanon agreement seems distant

The New York Times reports the good news on Lebanon, that the United Nations, France, Britain and the United States say they are nearing an agreement on a cessation of hostilities. The bad news is that all the posturing and goodwill might have absolutely no effect on the states in which this war is occurring.

Even if Israel and Lebanon were present at the talks, it isn't clear that the latter party would do much more than enjoy some diplomatic meals and small talk; Lebanon has zero control over Hezbollah. This Washington Post article sums it up:

Lebanon's acting foreign minister, Tarek Mitri, said Wednesday he doubts that his government would agree to invite a European-led intervention force into southern Lebanon, citing fierce opposition from Hezbollah and its key foreign backers, Syria and Iran.

So we are not seeing the single required element in Weber's defintion of the state, the monopoly on the legitimate use of physicial force. This begs the question, Is Lebanon a state?