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
What are the potential consequences of Israel’s desire to retain military options in Lebanon for regional stability?
**Interview Segment on Israeli-Lebanese Tensions**
**Host**: Welcome to our segment today, where we discuss the evolving situation in the Middle East, particularly focusing on Israel and Lebanon. We have with us Mr. David Barrow, a political analyst and former diplomat who recently returned from talks with Israeli officials. David, thank you for joining us.
**David Barrow**: Thank you for having me. It’s great to be here.
**Host**: You mentioned in a recent parliamentary session that Israeli officials are expressing a desire to retain the ability to launch strikes in Lebanon, akin to their operations in Syria. Can you elaborate on that?
**David Barrow**: Certainly. During my discussions with Israeli officials, it became clear that there’s a growing sentiment among them about maintaining a military option concerning Lebanon. They believe that operational flexibility is crucial, especially with the ongoing tensions in the region. This could potentially lead to more aggressive military actions if deemed necessary.
**Host**: That’s quite alarming. We also understand that many diplomats are skeptical about persuading Lebanese factions to accept this kind of demand from Israel. What are your thoughts on this?
**David Barrow**: Yes, that’s a significant point. Many diplomats believe it will be nearly impossible to get Lebanon or its factions to agree to any situation where Israel retains such military options. The historical context and deep-seated mistrust make it very challenging to achieve any form of agreement that feels fair to both sides.
**Host**: You suggested that coordination between France and the U.S. is essential but complicated. Can you explain why?
**David Barrow**: Absolutely. France has been proactive in trying to lead initiatives regarding Lebanon, but they don’t have the sway to convince Israel without U.S. backing. The U.S. also needs a nuanced understanding of Lebanon’s internal politics, which adds complexity to any coordinated efforts. It’s crucial that both nations work together effectively, or else their initiatives may be doomed from the start.
**Host**: Lastly, there hasn’t been a comment from Israel regarding your statements. What do you think the implications of that could be?
**David Barrow**: The lack of response speaks volumes. It suggests that Israeli officials are either cautious about how they want to address the international community or are currently debating their internal strategy. This silence can create further anxiety in Lebanon and among international observers, as it leaves the door open for speculation about Israel’s intentions.
**Host**: Thank you, David. Your insights shed light on this complex situation. We hope for a peaceful resolution as tensions continue to unfold in the region.
**David Barrow**: Thank you for having me. Let’s hope for dialog and understanding among all parties involved.
