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 can major international players like the U.S. and France effectively coordinate their diplomatic efforts to address the complexities of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict?
**Interview with Diplomatic Analyst on Recent Developments in Israel-Lebanon Relations**
**Host:** Welcome to our program. Today, we have the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Emily Carter, a diplomatic analyst with extensive expertise in Middle Eastern politics. Emily, thank you for joining us.
**Dr. Carter:** Thank you for having me.
**Host:** Let’s dive right into the recent statements made by Barrow regarding Israeli military intentions towards Lebanon. He mentioned that there is a growing call within Israel to maintain the capability for immediate strikes against Lebanon. What do you make of this situation?
**Dr. Carter:** Barrow’s comments highlight a concerning trend in Israeli military rhetoric. The suggestion that Israel should have the option to launch strikes or even invade Lebanon at any time signals a potential escalation in tensions. This kind of aggressive posture can provoke further instability in an already volatile region. It also suggests that Israeli officials are not taking the lessons of past conflicts seriously, where military action has often led to broader confrontations.
**Host:** Reuters has pointed out that many diplomats believe convincing Lebanese factions to accept such a demand will be nearly impossible. Why do you think that is?
**Dr. Carter:** The Lebanese political landscape is complex and fragmented, with numerous factions that have their own interests and grievances. The idea of allowing Israel to strike at will is fundamentally at odds with Lebanon’s sovereignty and national security. Such demands not only exacerbate existing divisions within Lebanon but also strengthen the resolve of groups like Hezbollah, which positions itself as a defender against Israeli aggression. Diplomatic efforts must consider these internal dynamics if they are to succeed.
**Host:** Barrow also mentioned that neither France nor the United States should act unilaterally in leading initiatives for peace in Lebanon. What collaboration do you think is necessary among international players?
**Dr. Carter:** Coordination between major powers like the U.S. and France is crucial. Without a unified front, efforts to negotiate a ceasefire or peace settlement can become disjointed and ineffective. It’s important that both countries share insights and strategies to address the regional complexities. The U.S. needs to leverage its influence over Israel, while France, with its historical ties to Lebanon, can facilitate dialogue. A synchronized approach is vital for any meaningful progress.
**Host:** With the current complications in U.S. policy and the outgoing administration, how does that impact the situation?
**Dr. Carter:** The transition period in U.S. leadership often leads to uncertainty in foreign policy. If the U.S. envoy, Amos Hochstein, is pursuing a different agenda without coordination with both Israel and France, we could see fragmented diplomacy that fails to address the root causes of the conflict. That could diminish the prospects for a durable ceasefire or peace agreement, especially with rising tensions in regions like southern Lebanon where recent Israeli strikes have targeted Hezbollah positions [[1](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/07/world/israel-iran-hezbollah-lebanon)].
**Host:** Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insights on this critical issue. Your expertise is invaluable as we navigate these complex geopolitical waters.
**Dr. Carter:** Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to discuss these important topics.
**Host:** And thank you to our viewers for tuning in. We hope this discussion gives you a clearer understanding of the evolving situation in the Middle East.
