The website "Arabi 21" stated that the Israeli writer and academic Eyal Zisser said in an article published in the newspaper "IsraelToday,” the talk about approaching Lebanon and Israel's new political understandings are still premature," he said, adding that "any declaration of principles between the two sides could meet the same fate as the May 17, 1983 agreement if practical steps are not taken to address the existing challenges on the ground."
Zisser added that "the Lebanese government's willingness to sign a document of principles that includes a commitment to move towards a peace agreement with Israel represents, in his view, a remarkable development, especially in light of what he described as the decline in influence of Hezbollah"Compared to previous phases in which the concepts of 'peace' and 'normalization' were absent from Lebanese political discourse."
He considered that "the document of principles does not rise to the level of an actual peace agreement, but remains within the framework of a declaration of intent that needs practical translation on the ground," and he believed that "the real challenge lies in the implementation mechanisms and not in political statements or declared pledges.
Zisser pointed out that "the importance of the declaration, if it goes ahead, lies in its ability to separate the Lebanese track from the ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran, and preventing Tehran from maintaining direct influence in determining the future of the Lebanese arena.”
He criticized what he described as an attempt by American Vice President J.D. Vance linked the Lebanese file to the understandings with Iran. He argued that "such a trend gives Tehran an influential role in Lebanon and gives Hezbollah an opportunity to regain its strength, which could hinder the Lebanese government's efforts to rebuild state institutions free from Iranian influence.
According to Zisser, "intervention by American Foreign Minister Marco Rubio, in coordination with Lebanon and Israel, helped avert this scenario, and also allowed Tel Aviv to maintain its military presence in South Lebanon In accordance with its security requirements.”
Despite this, the writer emphasized that “what is happening so far does not go beyond the framework of non-binding political documents,” recalling the May 17, 1983 agreement, which stipulated ending the state of war between the two parties, respecting the borders, and the withdrawal of forces. In exchange for Israeli commitment to Lebanon that was obligated to prevent any operations against Israel launched from Lebanese territory.”
He explained that “the agreement did not last long due to the weakness of the Lebanese state at the time and its inability to fulfill its commitments, in addition to the Syrian role in obstructing the agreement and the withdrawal of the United States from the Lebanese scene after its forces were subjected to deadly attacks claimed by Hezbollah, which ultimately led to the cancellation of the agreement in 1984.”
Zisser pointed out that “Hezbollah is betting today on a repeat of this scenario, considering that the fate of any new understandings may be similar if the party remains a major player on the Lebanese domestic scene.”
He concluded by saying that “the success of any future political process between Lebanon and Israel requires, in his view, preventing Hezbollah from regaining its capabilities and reducing Iranian influence in parallel with supporting Lebanese state institutions and strengthening their role, he warned that ignoring the lessons of the past could lead to a reproduction of the failures of previous experiences.
As received in Arabic, translated to fit our blog, for better understanding of the situation between Lebanon and Israel nowadays, more so in light of the escalation taking shape on the ground as more players are being dragged into the game, as in Turkey and possibly Egypt as well as Syria, which will somehow worsen the situation for Lebanon, the weaker link in the area.
As always, my many thanks to all.
No comments:
Post a Comment