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
How might the potential Israeli military strategy in Lebanon affect the relationships between Lebanese factions and international diplomatic efforts?
**Interview with Political Analyst Dr. Sarah Cohen on Barrow’s Statements About Israeli Military Actions in Lebanon**
**Host:** Welcome, Dr. Cohen, and thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent statements made by Barrow regarding Israeli military intentions in Lebanon. Could you start by summarizing what Barrow expressed during the parliamentary session after his visit to Israel?
**Dr. Cohen:** Thank you for having me. Barrow highlighted an alarming trend among Israeli officials who seem to insist on the need to maintain the ability to launch military strikes at any moment and even possibly invade Lebanon, akin to their strategies with Syria. This reflects a serious escalation in rhetoric amid the ongoing conflict and highlights the complex military and political landscape in the region [[1](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/13/middleeast/israel-expands-ground-operation-lebanon-intl-latam/index.html)].
**Host:** Indeed, that sounds concerning. Reuters pointed out that many diplomats believe it would be nearly impossible to convince Lebanese factions to accept such proposals. What do you think are the main reasons for this resistance?
**Dr. Cohen:** The resistance is rooted in a variety of factors. First, Lebanon has its own internal dynamics and factions that often oppose external military interference and threats. Many Lebanese would see any consideration of Israeli military actions as an infringement on their sovereignty and a continuation of a historical conflict. Additionally, these factions, especially Hezbollah, are fiercely opposed to any such proposals, which they would likely view as a direct challenge [[1](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/13/middleeast/israel-expands-ground-operation-lebanon-intl-latam/index.html)].
**Host:** Barrow also mentioned the need for coordinated efforts between France and the United States to effectively address the situation in Lebanon. Why is such coordination critical, and what might be impeding it?
**Dr. Cohen:** Coordination is crucial because any viable peace initiative must acknowledge the complexities of the Lebanese landscape. France, with its historical ties to Lebanon, and the U.S., as a key ally of Israel, need to present a united front to mediate effectively. However, the situation is complicated by differing priorities. The U.S. envoy’s focus on individual proposals may undermine a comprehensive strategy and lead to disjointed efforts, making it harder not only to reach a ceasefire but also to ensure lasting peace [[1](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/13/middleeast/israel-expands-ground-operation-lebanon-intl-latam/index.html)].
**Host:** have there been any official comments from Israeli leaders regarding Barrow’s statements?
**Dr. Cohen:** As of now, there hasn’t been an official response from Israeli officials regarding Barrow’s comments. However, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz did indicate a commitment to maintaining military readiness during his recent visits, suggesting that the Israeli government is firmly entrenched in its current strategy. This silence could signify either a strategic choice to avoid public debate or an acknowledgment of the sensitive nature of the situation [[1](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/13/middleeast/israel-expands-ground-operation-lebanon-intl-latam/index.html)].
**Host:** Thank you, Dr. Cohen, for this insightful discussion. The complexities of the situation in Lebanon are indeed challenging, and we appreciate your expertise on the matter.
**Dr. Cohen:** Thank you for having me; it’s a vital topic that continues to evolve.
