Lebanese officials deny that border discussions with Israel could lead to normalization, asserting they are in accordance with UN Resolution 1701. Committees have been established to address border disputes and other contentious issues. Despite Israel’s aspiration for normalization, significant local concerns regarding security and negotiations persist, with warnings about potential risks tied to incomplete agreements.
Sources from the office of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun have contradicted Israeli assertions that ongoing discussions about a permanent border could lead to normalization between Lebanon and Israel. They clarified that the formation of three committees for addressing border issues is part of the ongoing implementation of UN Resolution 1701 and not indicative of direct negotiations. They stated, “Any claims that these committees serve as a prelude to normalization are false.”
The committees will focus on critical issues such as border disputes, unresolved points from the 2006 war, five sites seized by Israel, and the status of prisoners. Earlier statements suggested that Israel aims to normalize relations with Lebanon, with an Israeli official noting, “The Prime Minister’s policies have already changed the Middle East, and we want to continue the momentum and achieve normalization with Lebanon.”
The Prime Minister’s Office recently announced a meeting in Naqoura involving representatives from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the United States, France, and Lebanon. In conjunction with U.S. coordination, Israel agreed to release five Lebanese detainees, which aims to bolster the new president’s standing while emphasizing the intent for mutual discussions on various contentious topics.
However, concerns have been expressed regarding the potential risks of any agreements. David Azoulay from the Metula Regional Council cautioned against weak arrangements and the decision to release detainees without security guarantees, stating that any progress in talks must be based on effective actions rather than mere promises. Moshe Davidovich from Mateh Asher emphasized the importance of maintaining security buffers with firm Israeli military presence on the borders.
Reportedly, the release of detainees was not initiated as a goodwill gesture; rather, it was a culmination of previous negotiations. Allegations have surfaced that President Aoun sought American influence to compel Israel to adhere to certain obligations, particularly following Lebanon’s extension of a ceasefire. The unresponsiveness of Israel and lack of pressure from the U.S. has purportedly become a source of embarrassment for Lebanon.
In conclusion, the discussions between Lebanon and Israel regarding border demarcation are being framed strictly under UN Resolution 1701, dismissing any notion of normalization. Concerns regarding security impacts have been voiced by regional officials, indicating a cautious approach towards international negotiations and military presence. The backdrop of these discussions involves historical tensions and the political dynamics affecting both nations, particularly with regard to Hezbollah’s influence and the internal stability of Lebanon.
Original Source: www.ynetnews.com
