– Fadi Eid
Logic assumes that the diplomatic solution seeking a ceasefire will prevail over military action and the ever-expanding war on multiple levels, whether in terms of the field open to catastrophic scenarios, or in terms of the divergent political positions, which heralds a radical change to the rules of the internal game. The presidential initiative or the European-backed French proposals have not achieved, at least so far, tangible results that would allow expecting a major shift in the diplomatic track, which both parties to the conflict reject. In addition, the link between the Lebanese and Iranian arenas, despite Iran and Hezbollah’s denial of this, still exists and is influential in determining the ceiling of the positions of the United States of America and Israel, which are the two influential parties in the war.
At the present time, and in any potential negotiation process, the issue of arms exclusivity remains the main issue, and this is what Paris seeks to focus on with the aim of relaunching indirect negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, according to the vision of a former ambassador to Washington. The ambassador believes that the ideas proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron for the settlement will not yield any results in light of the internal and regional complexities that have thwarted all previous settlements and obstructed the implementation of international resolutions regarding the south, which Israel, first and the party, second, did not adhere to.
Therefore, doubts are growing about the possibility of any negotiations going beyond a mere ceasefire or truce, as long as the executive mechanisms of any agreement remain in a cycle of stagnation or postponement. The former ambassador points out that the calculations of the two sides of the confrontation differ from those of official Lebanon on the one hand, and the French presidency and international mediators on the other hand.
It is known that the French initiative is based on establishing a ceasefire on the southern border, in parallel with launching a negotiating track aimed at addressing the outstanding security points and expanding the role of the Lebanese state in managing the border region. However, the former ambassador does not see the timing of this proposal as an opportunity to achieve a breakthrough that would allow the southern front to be separated from the ongoing war, before the scope of Israeli military operations expands.
In light of this scene, questions are returning to the forefront centering around the role of the state and enhancing its presence by establishing the principle of restricting the decision of war and peace to legitimate institutions, knowing that implementation remains linked to the decision and to international support for the Lebanese army and security institutions, especially from the United States, France and a number of Arab countries.
On the other hand, Israeli calculations differ, as the former ambassador, who is familiar with the scenes of French diplomatic communications, confirms that Israel views any ceasefire initiative from a purely security perspective, through measures that end any threat to its northern borders, through additional points on the ground or through American “guarantees,” until it is certain of the Lebanese state’s ability to impose its security authority.
Accordingly, the negotiating path begins amid doubts about the seriousness of the parties involved in the settlement, which makes its chances of success limited according to field data, and not according to the escalatory positions that are launched in the last moments before any negotiations.
