The Beirut Crisis Isn’t the Core Issue… It’s Tel Aviv, and the Potential for Political Sectarianism of the “Mechanism”!

The issue of indirect negotiations with Israel continues to garner significant attention both domestically and internationally, especially with the ongoing security developments and the increasing Israeli violations and aggressions. The continuous flight of drones over Baabda Palace and the rest of the regions raises concern, and is seen as a direct response to the President’s call for indirect negotiations.

However, sources close to Baabda Palace believe that the media hype regarding this phenomenon is exaggerated, especially what is being circulated about contacting the ceasefire monitoring committee, “the Mechanism,” to inquire about any Israeli military action in Lebanon due to the drone flights. The sources indicate that communication with the committee is ongoing through the army leadership on a nearly daily basis, and therefore this communication is not specifically related to the issue of drones.

As for the negotiation mechanism and what is being raised about a disagreement regarding it, the matter is far from the truth. The problem is not in “inoculating” the “Mechanism” committee with a political dimension to be more prepared for indirect negotiations, as suggested by former Prime Minister Najib Mikati. This is possible in the opinion of the sources, and remains a proposal within the available options.

But the real problem, according to the sources, goes beyond Lebanon and its options, and relates specifically to Israel and the ability of the United States of America to exert pressure on it, and the extent to which Israel responds to these pressures. At present, Israel does not show a desire to negotiate, based on its feeling of superiority and victory in its battles from Lebanon to Gaza to Syria and the West Bank.