Barrow said during a parliamentary session after his visit to Israel last week: “Israeli officials are increasingly repeating a condition… Today in Israel we hear voices demanding that we retain the ability to launch strikes at any moment and even invade Lebanon, as is the case with neighboring Syria.”
Reuters pointed out that “a number of diplomats believe that it will be almost impossible to convince the Lebanese factions or Lebanon to accept any proposal that includes this demand.”
Barrow, who held talks with Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and new Defense Minister Yisrael Katz last week, added: “There is no point in France leading initiatives on Lebanon alone given its need for the United States to convince Israel. Likewise, there is no point in Washington moving alone because it will lack the An accurate assessment of the internal political dynamics in Lebanon.”
The coordination process between Paris and the outgoing US administration to reach a ceasefire became more complex, as the US envoy to Lebanon, Amos Hochstein, focused on his own proposals.
There has been no comment yet from Israel on Barrow’s statements, but Katz had said on Thursday during his visit to the Northern Command, accompanied by Chief of Staff Major General Herzi Halevy and Commander of the Northern Command Major General Uri Gordin: “We will not allow any arrangement in Lebanon that does not include achieving the goals of the war, and above all.” “Israel’s right to subdue and prevent terrorism on its own.”
He added: “We will not announce any ceasefire. We will not take our foot off the pedal, that is, we will continue and will not allow any series (agreement) that does not include achieving the goals of the war, which are the disarmament of the Lebanese factions and their withdrawal beyond the Litani, and creating conditions for the residents of the north to return to their homes safely.”
These statements by Katz come against the backdrop of contacts with the United States to reach a settlement on the northern border, which is considered to be in the final stages of its formulation, with Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer leading the moves before Washington.
For his part, the Secretary-General of the Lebanese faction movement, Naim Qassem, confirmed last Wednesday that there will be no path to indirect ceasefire negotiations other than Israel stopping its attacks on Lebanon.
He added: “The basis of any negotiation is built on two things: stopping the aggression and that the ceiling of the negotiation be the complete protection of Lebanese sovereignty, and that only developments on the battlefield, not political movements, will put an end to the hostilities.”
He pointed out that “there will be no path to indirect negotiations through the Lebanese state unless Israel stops its attacks on Lebanon.”
Source: Reuters + RT
#French #Foreign #Minister #Israel #retain #possibility #striking #Lebanon #ceasefire
**Interview with Political Analyst on Israel-Hezbollah Cease-Fire Negotiations**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today. We’re discussing the recent developments regarding potential cease-fire negotiations between Israel and Hezbollah, particularly in light of Barrow’s recent statements about Israeli military strategy. To start off, could you summarize the key points made by Barrow during his parliamentary session?
**Analyst:** Certainly. Barrow emphasized that there seems to be a growing sentiment among Israeli officials advocating for the ability to conduct military operations in Lebanon, similar to their operations in Syria. He pointed out the urgency of this stance, suggesting that some voices in Israel are calling for the capability to strike at any moment, which complicates cease-fire prospects [[1](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/world/middleeast/israel-hezbollah-ceasefire-lebanon.html)].
**Interviewer:** That’s a concerning scenario. Reuters reports that diplomats think it may be nearly impossible to persuade Lebanese factions to accept such conditions. Why do you think that’s the case?
**Analyst:** Lebanon’s political landscape is very complex, and any proposal that allows Israel to maintain military action could be seen as a direct threat to Lebanon’s sovereignty. The Lebanese government and various factions, including Hezbollah, would likely resist proposals that could be interpreted as legitimizing further Israeli aggression. Barrow’s remarks highlight that without a unified approach from international powers like France and the US, there’s little chance for meaningful negotiations [[1](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/world/middleeast/israel-hezbollah-ceasefire-lebanon.html)].
**Interviewer:** You mentioned the roles of France and the US in these negotiations. Can you elaborate on the coordination issues that Barrow noted?
**Analyst:** Absolutely. Barrow indicated that France should not pursue initiatives related to Lebanon independently, as it requires US influence to sway Israel. Conversely, the US must understand the intricate realities of Lebanon’s internal politics if it wants to negotiate successfully. The current diplomatic landscape is challenging, especially since the US envoy, Amos Hochstein, appears to be focusing on his own proposals without adequate coordination with French efforts [[1](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/world/middleeast/israel-hezbollah-ceasefire-lebanon.html)].
**Interviewer:** In light of this information and the complexity surrounding these negotiations, what do you predict will happen next?
**Analyst:** I foresee continued tensions and a stalemate unless there’s a significant shift in diplomatic strategies, particularly from the US and France. Without a mutual understanding and coordinated approach, both sides may find themselves trapped in a cycle of military escalation rather than moving toward a sustainable cease-fire [[1](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/world/middleeast/israel-hezbollah-ceasefire-lebanon.html)].
**Interviewer:** Thank you for your insights. It seems like a delicate situation that requires careful navigation. We’ll be watching closely as this situation develops.
