Representative Major General Jamil Al-Sayyid considered that the declared Israeli positions regarding the arrangements related to southern Lebanon differ radically from the official Lebanese discourse, considering that what Israel says reflects, in his opinion, the reality of what happened in the Washington negotiations and the framework agreement.
Al-Sayyed said, in a post on the “X” platform: “Once again, and I have repeatedly written here, that between the celebratory statements of the leaders of our state about the Washington negotiations and the framework agreement with Israel, and the statements of Netanyahu and his officials, I believe what Israel says,” adding that “most of Lebanon’s leaders today are between fearful abroad or fearful at home, and the weak are lying.”
Al-Sayyed relied on statements that he said were made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today, Friday, in a video message via “Sky News Arabia,” to the effect that the framework agreement with Lebanon constitutes a “strong blow to Iran,” and that Israel, Lebanon, and the United States informed Iran, as he put it, that it has no role in Lebanon, “neither you, nor Hezbollah, nor any terrorist organization.”
Al-Sayyid quoted Netanyahu as saying that Israel “will not withdraw from the safe areas in southern Lebanon without disarming Hezbollah,” and that it will remain in that region “as long as there is a danger threatening the State of Israel.”
Regarding field arrangements, Al-Sayyid indicated that Netanyahu talked about establishing two experimental areas, one south of the Litani River and outside what he called the “security zone,” and the second north of it, with a small part of it including an area that he said Israel occupied two weeks ago and that the Israeli army does not need.
Al-Sayyed asked: “Is there anything clearer than this Israeli position compared to our official statements?” He considered that “all the negotiations and the framework agreement in Washington were aimed only at removing southern Lebanon from the US-Iranian ceasefire agreement.”
He added that, according to his position, this is “what the President of the Republic of Lebanon and his negotiating delegation agreed to, free of charge and without any restrictions or guarantees,” asking: “Was it not in Lebanon’s national interest in those negotiations for Lebanon to barter between Israel’s withdrawal from the south in exchange for removing Lebanon from the US-Iranian agreement?”
