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 implications of Israeli military action in Lebanon on regional stability and security dynamics?
**Interview with Dr. Emily Roberts, Middle East Policy Expert**
**Editor**: Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Roberts. We just heard some concerning developments regarding Israel’s stance on the situation in Lebanon. Barrow recently mentioned that Israeli officials are considering the possibility of launching strikes or invading Lebanon. What are your thoughts on this?
**Dr. Roberts**: Thank you for having me. Barrow’s comments reflect a growing sentiment among some Israeli officials who believe that military readiness is essential, particularly in light of recent escalations in violence. This approach indicates a shift in how Israel is interpreting its security needs, especially with the ongoing tensions across the border and the operations in Lebanon that have claimed many lives [[1](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/13/middleeast/israel-expands-ground-operation-lebanon-intl-latam/index.html)].
**Editor**: Reuters has noted that convincing Lebanese factions to accept Israel’s conditions might be nearly impossible. Why do you think that is?
**Dr. Roberts**: The internal dynamics of Lebanese politics are complex, with various factions holding differing views on Israel. Any proposal that seems to compromise Lebanese sovereignty or implies military action will likely be met with resistance. Lebanon’s recent history also makes such negotiations particularly sensitive. The Lebanese population is generally opposed to Israeli military actions, and any perceived threat of invasion could unify these factions against Israel [[1](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/13/middleeast/israel-expands-ground-operation-lebanon-intl-latam/index.html)].
**Editor**: Barrow also emphasized the importance of U.S.-French coordination in addressing this conflict. How significant do you think this is, given the current geopolitical climate?
**Dr. Roberts**: Very significant. France and the U.S. have traditionally had roles in mediating conflicts in the region. Barrow’s assertion that neither country should act alone indicates the need for a unified strategy that takes into account the nuances of Lebanese political dynamics. Without a collaborative effort, any initiative risks lack of legitimacy among the local factions, undermining peace efforts [[1](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/13/middleeast/israel-expands-ground-operation-lebanon-intl-latam/index.html)].
**Editor**: considering Yisrael Katz’s recent statements and the absence of an Israeli response to Barrow’s comments, what do you anticipate in terms of Israel’s military strategy moving forward?
**Dr. Roberts**: If Katz continues to advocate for a military posture that allows for swift action against perceived threats, we could see escalated military engagement in Lebanon, especially if civilian casualties continue to rise. This potential for increased military operations could lead to further destabilization in the region, making diplomatic solutions even more challenging [[1](https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/13/middleeast/israel-expands-ground-operation-lebanon-intl-latam/index.html)].
**Editor**: Thank you, Dr. Roberts, for your valuable insights. It certainly seems like a delicate situation that requires careful navigation. We appreciate your time today.
**Dr. Roberts**: Thank you for having me. The situation remains fluid, and it’s essential that we continue to monitor developments closely.
