French Foreign Minister: Israel wants to retain the possibility of striking Lebanon even after the ceasefire

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 Barrow’s statements on Israeli military intentions for Lebanese domestic politics and its factions?

**Interview with Guest Expert on Middle⁣ Eastern Diplomacy:⁢ Insights from Barrow’s Remarks⁣ on Israeli-Lebanese Relations**

**Host:** Welcome to our segment on the current tensions in ‍the Middle East. We’re joined today by Dr. Sarah Neumann, an ⁢expert in Middle Eastern politics and international relations. Thank you for being here, Dr. Neumann.

**Dr. Neumann:** Thank you for having me.

**Host:** ‍Recently, Barrow made some noteworthy comments regarding Israeli military intentions toward Lebanon. He stated, “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.” What do you think about this assertion?

**Dr. Neumann:** Barrow’s remarks highlight a significant shift in ‍Israeli rhetoric regarding Lebanon.‍ The ‍implication that Israel is considering preemptive military actions raises serious concerns, especially given the already tense situation in the region. Such statements can escalate fears among Lebanese factions, potentially undermining⁤ any diplomatic‌ efforts that ​aim for a peaceful resolution.

**Host:** Reuters also reported that many diplomats ⁢believe convincing⁢ Lebanese factions ‌to accept‌ Israel’s demands is nearly impossible. Why do ​you think​ that is?

**Dr. Neumann:** Many Lebanese factions see Israeli military presence ⁣and intentions as existential ⁤threats.‌ The historical context of past ⁢conflicts ⁣and current geopolitical dynamics mean that​ any proposal perceived as infringing on Lebanese sovereignty is likely to be⁤ met with resistance. The complexities within Lebanese politics, marked by various ‌sectarian divides ⁢and the influence of groups like Hezbollah, make it exceedingly difficult to broker an agreement that would satisfy all parties.

**Host:** Barrow indicated that collaboration between France and the ⁤United States is crucial⁢ for any meaningful‍ initiative regarding Lebanon. Could you elaborate on this?

**Dr. Neumann:** Absolutely. France has traditionally had a role in Lebanese politics, but any significant initiative ​must also include the United⁤ States, especially⁢ given Israel’s strategic ⁣reliance on U.S. military and diplomatic support. The interplay of international influence is critical;‌ as Barrow noted, without U.S. backing, any French-led initiative would likely falter.

**Host:** It seems there are layers of​ complexity involved,⁤ especially with⁢ U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein proposing his own solutions. How does this affect the coordination for a ceasefire?

**Dr. Neumann:** The focus on separate proposals could lead to‌ fragmentation in the response to the crisis. If Paris and Washington are​ not aligned, their initiatives may compete rather than complement each other. Effective diplomacy in such a volatile environment requires strong and unified messaging. Disunity can ‌be interpreted as weakness by regional ​actors, which can lead to ⁣increased tensions instead of resolution.

**Host:** Lastly, ‌have we ‍seen​ any response from Israeli officials regarding Barrow’s statements?

**Dr. Neumann:** As of now, there has not been an official comment from Israel on Barrow’s comments. However, ⁤Defense Minister Yisrael Katz’s previous statements during his visit to the Northern Command suggest that Israel is maintaining⁤ a hardline stance. It will ‌be critical to watch‌ how the Israeli leadership responds in the coming days, especially if the ⁢situation on the⁣ ground escalates.

**Host:** Thank you, Dr. Neumann, for your valuable insights ⁣on‍ this developing situation. It’s⁢ important⁢ for us to stay tuned to how these⁤ diplomatic interactions unfold.

**Dr. Neumann:** Thank you for having me. It’s always a ​pleasure to discuss these crucial issues.

Leave a Replay