Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri confirmed that Lebanon has received from the United States a draft conflict resolution plan providing for a ceasefire on the Lebanese-Israeli border.
According to the newspaper, the document includes 13 points, including the transfer of control over the southern regions of Lebanon after the withdrawal of Israeli troops to the Lebanese army, which will be assisted by the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
Berri noted that the Lebanese government is preparing a response to the proposals presented, including its comments and additions. At the same time, he stressed that Lebanon would reject the clause providing for the creation, under the auspices of the United States, of a commission to monitor the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. According to him, this task has already been entrusted to UN peacekeepers, and there is no need to create a new mechanism.
Sources in Beirut cited by the publication said that Lebanon is also concerned about the clause confirming the “right of the parties to self-defense.” Beirut fears that this provision could give Israel grounds for further violations of Lebanese sovereignty.
According to the draft, Israel must withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon within seven days after the agreement enters into force. In turn, Lebanon undertakes to prevent the activities of illegal armed groups and to suppress the supply of weapons through smuggling.
Berry said negotiations on details are ongoing and are taking place in a positive atmosphere. He also noted that the visit of American mediator Amos Hochstein to Beirut depends on progress in the negotiations and the readiness of the parties to sign an agreement.
The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reports that Israel assesses that Hezbollah remains combat-ready and will probably not rush into a deal. At the same time, the Israeli side assumes that Lebanon and Hezbollah will not agree to a clause giving the Israeli army freedom of action in case of violation of the agreement.
The state media corporation Kan clarifies that, according to the project, the only armed force in the southern regions of Lebanon will remain the Lebanese army, with the support of UNIFIL. The sale and production of weapons in Lebanon will be under government control.
It was previously reported that the key point of contention remains the mechanism for monitoring the implementation of Resolution 1701. Berri emphasized that Lebanon insists on using the existing mechanism provided for in the resolution and rejects the proposal to create a new committee.
The resolution includes demands for the withdrawal of Hezbollah militants beyond the Litani River line and an end to Israeli military operations in Lebanon. The Lebanese side insists on compliance with the resolution within the framework of existing procedures.
How might local militias in Lebanon respond to the proposed transition of control to the Lebanese army?
Title: Navigating Tensions: An Interview on Lebanon’s Ceasefire Proposal with Time.news Editor and Conflict Resolution Expert
Time.news Editor (T): Thank you for joining us today. We have with us Dr. Layla Hafez, a renowned expert in Middle Eastern conflict resolution. Dr. Hafez, I understand that recently Nabih Berri, the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, confirmed that Lebanon received a draft conflict resolution plan from the United States. Can you explain the significance of this development?
Dr. Layla Hafez (L): Thank you for having me. The receipt of this draft resolution plan is significant on multiple levels. Firstly, it indicates that there is a wish from external actors, particularly the United States, to address the ongoing tension between Lebanon and Israel. A ceasefire proposal could pave the way for a de-escalation of military tensions and promote regional stability, which is desperately needed given the history of conflict in the area.
T: Indeed. The draft reportedly includes a 13-point plan that stipulates the transfer of control in southern Lebanon to the Lebanese army post-Israeli withdrawal. What are your thoughts on this transition and the role of UNIFIL in assisting the Lebanese Armed Forces?
L: This is a crucial aspect. The presence of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) plays a stabilizing role. If this plan proceeds, the Lebanese army’s control over southern regions could enhance Lebanon’s sovereignty, which is a critical concern for the government. However, the success of this transition largely depends on the cooperation of local militias and the effectiveness of the Lebanese government in asserting its authority.
T: Berri has mentioned that the Lebanese government is crafting a response to the draft. What challenges do you foresee in the government’s decision-making process, especially regarding the proposed commission for monitoring compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701?
L: The challenges indeed are profound. Berri’s concern about a monitoring commission is well-founded; Lebanon already feels the weight of sovereignty issues. There is a historical reluctance to have external bodies exert influence over domestic affairs. If Lebanon perceives this proposed commission as an infringement on its sovereignty, it could lead to rejection of the entire proposal or force Lebanon to negotiate harsher terms.
T: Lebanon also expressed apprehension about the clause allowing for self-defense. Can you elaborate on why this could be problematic?
L: Absolutely. This clause could inadvertently provide Israel with a pretext for future military actions. Lebanon’s concerns originate from past experiences where such provisions were used to justify violations of its sovereignty. It amplifies fears that Israel could interpret any military engagement as a threat and respond disproportionately, further complicating the delicate balance of ceasefire conditions.
T: The draft suggests the withdrawal of Israeli troops within seven days after the agreement is effective. Is this timeline feasible, considering the complexities on the ground?
L: Seven days is indeed a tight timeframe. The logistics of withdrawal, the political climate, and the potential for local unrest complicate the feasibility of such a rapid turnaround. There needs to be a clear framework for what happens during and after the withdrawal to ensure that it does not lead to a power vacuum that could be exploited by militant groups.
T: What do you think should be the key priorities for Lebanon as it prepares its response to the draft?
L: Lebanon must prioritize its sovereignty and the security of its borders. It should seek to clarify any ambiguous language around military actions and self-defense. Strengthening communication channels with both international and regional stakeholders will be vital in ensuring that their security concerns are addressed while still being open to negotiations that can lead to lasting peace.
T: Thank you, Dr. Hafez, for sharing your insights on this complex situation. As Lebanon navigates these diplomatic waters, the international community’s engagement will be crucial in supporting a resolution that promotes long-term stability.
L: It was my pleasure. Let’s hope for a constructive response that prioritizes peace and stability in the region.
This interview highlights the complexities of the situation in Lebanon while engaging the expert to provide context and insight into the proposed ceasefire plan.