Subhi Amhaz – Middle East
Israel has placed three no’s that contribute to obstructing progress towards any solution in the political and military track in southern Lebanon. The three no’s are the rejection of the proposed Italian force to carry out the verification mission in the experimental area. It also refuses to expand the model areas, and places obstacles to any post-UNIFIL arrangements, including proposals for a European force to replace the UN mission whose mandate expires at the end of this year.
The arrangements related to the next phase in southern Lebanon are complicated, in light of the continuing dispute over the form of the security mechanism that is supposed to accompany any Israeli withdrawal, the party that will be responsible for verifying the implementation of commitments, and the limits of its powers, in parallel with the continuation of Israeli operations in the south.
This coincided with the President of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, presenting with the Army Commander, General Rodolphe Heikal, the security conditions in the country in general and in the south in particular, in light of the continued Israeli attacks on southern villages and towns.
Heikal informed the President of the Republic of the results of his visit to Italy and the talks he held with Italian officials, without the presidential statement specifying the content of these talks or whether they directly addressed proposals related to future security arrangements.
Israeli tendency to obstruction
About two months after the signing of the “Framework Agreement,” there has not yet been a move to additional experimental areas, while an Israeli objection has emerged, according to the Hebrew media, to the proposal for the participation of an Italian force in monitoring the areas from which Israeli forces are supposed to withdraw and the Lebanese army is responsible for them.
Lebanese ministerial sources told Asharq Al-Awsat: “One of the most prominent reasons that has so far prevented us from deciding the identity of the party that will participate in the upcoming security arrangements in southern Lebanon, and determining its tasks, powers, and work controls, is represented by the changing Israeli positions and the objections raised by Tel Aviv.”
The sources explained that “the Israelis had not previously objected to the Italians’ participation, while today an Israeli objection to an Italian force has emerged, after objections to the French had also emerged,” pointing out that “until now there is no final decision regarding who will participate, what is the nature of the missions that will be assigned to him, and what are the limits of these missions and the mechanisms for their implementation.”
She added: “Israeli positions are constantly changing; Sometimes they object to the French, and sometimes to the Italians… and at each stage new conditions or positions appear, and therefore the final version of the arrangements has not yet been settled.”
The sources confirmed that “contacts are still continuing to discuss possible alternatives, and a final formula has not yet been settled, otherwise the features of the next stage would have become clearer.” She believed that “an essential part of the complications is related to the terms of the arrangements themselves; Israel raises demands related to the force’s powers and its working mechanisms, including issues related to house searches and the nature of participation in field procedures, which raise several caveats and hinder reaching an agreement.” She continued: “These conditions are accompanied by Israeli positions that indicate that the Lebanese army is not performing the role required of it, and the totality of these indicators suggests the presence of an Israeli tendency toward obstruction.”
Washington is in the heart of communications
Regarding Lebanese options in facing the complications, the sources said: “Lebanon is consulting with the Americans; Because they also bear a responsibility in this path. When the negotiation framework was established, the American role was an essential part of it, and therefore the path is not limited to Lebanon and Israel alone. She added: “There is practically no alternative to communicating with the Americans; Because they are the party capable of communicating with the Israeli side and influencing this path, and therefore communications with them are still continuing.”
An Israeli novel about experimental areas
The Israeli leaks show that the disagreement is not limited to the identity of the international body that could participate in the future arrangements, but rather extends to the nature of its powers, the limits of its tasks, its relationship with the Lebanese army, and the mechanisms for verifying implementation. The Hebrew “Wallah” website reported that Israel informed the United States of its dissatisfaction with the results of implementing the “experimental zones” project, and directed criticism at the performance of the Lebanese army in these areas.
According to the website, an Israeli security official considered that the Lebanese army was not implementing, from the Israeli point of view, the procedures required of it, and linked this to Tel Aviv’s current unwillingness to move to additional areas.
These positions remain part of the Israeli narrative regarding the implementation of the understandings, while Lebanese sources confirm the continuation of contacts and that the arrangements have not been decided or moved to a final formula yet.
Israeli veto on Italian power
The other disagreement concerns who can participate in monitoring the implementation of the arrangements. The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported that Israel opposes the deployment of an Italian military force in southern Lebanon to monitor the experimental areas, and quoted Israeli officials as fearing that any new international presence would limit the ability of the Israeli army to carry out its operations in Lebanon.
The newspaper also quoted Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz as rejecting the proposal, speaking of Israeli fears of repeating the UNIFIL model.
