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 implications do Barrow’s statements regarding Israeli military capabilities have for the future of Lebanon-Israel relations?
**Interview with Diplomatic Analyst James Turner on Barrow’s Statements Regarding Israel and Lebanon**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, James. Recent comments made by Barrow during a parliamentary session shed light on escalating tensions between Israel and Lebanon. What do you make of his assertion that Israeli officials are pushing for the ability to strike at Lebanon at any moment, similar to their operations in Syria?
**James Turner:** Thank you for having me. Barrow’s comments highlight a significant shift in Israeli military strategy. The insistence on maintaining the capability to strike Lebanon underscores a defensive posture driven by ongoing security concerns. Israel perceives threats from various militant factions in Lebanon, notably Hezbollah, and this mindset may contribute to an aggressive military stance.
**Interviewer:** Reuters pointed out that diplomats are skeptical about convincing Lebanese factions to accept proposals that include such demands from Israel. Why do you think this is the case?
**James Turner:** Absolutely, convincing Lebanese factions, which often have complex and divergent agendas, to agree to any proposal that includes a preemptive strike capability is highly challenging. Lebanese groups are deeply entrenched in their political landscapes, and any perceived capitulation to Israeli demands could undermine their legitimacy in the eyes of their supporters.
**Interviewer:** Barrow also mentioned the necessity for collaboration between France and the United States in handling Lebanon’s situation. Why is this coordination so vital?
**James Turner:** Coordination is crucial because the dynamics in Lebanon are influenced by a mix of local politics and regional power struggles. France has historical ties to Lebanon, but without U.S. support, its initiatives may lack the needed leverage to effectively negotiate with Israel. Conversely, the U.S. might not fully grasp Lebanon’s complexities without input from France. A unified approach is essential to address these multiplicative factors.
**Interviewer:** The situation is certainly complex. Barrow’s comments reflect a broader diplomatic struggle, especially with the outgoing U.S. administration now. How might this affect future peace negotiations?
**James Turner:** The complexities of this situation make peace negotiations particularly difficult. As Barrow mentions, the ongoing coordination between Paris and the U.S. drives the likelihood of a viable ceasefire. However, with internal politics in both countries evolving and the departure of the current U.S. administration, it’s critical for both nations to align their strategies. Without careful navigation, we could see increased tensions rather than progress.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, James, for your insights on this timely and intricate issue.
**James Turner:** Thank you for having me. The coming weeks will be pivotal for Israel and Lebanon, and I remain hopeful for constructive dialogues.