‘Serious sticking points’ remain despite Mikati’s optimism of a truce
Mikati describes himself as being “cautiously optimistic” of a ceasefire deal.
In terms of details of what that would entail, he said there will be no arms or military infrastructure south of the Litani River, except for that of the Lebanese army and an international force, under a ceasefire agreement in line with the UN Security Council resolution 1701, which was passed in 2006 on the back of the last Hezbollah and Israeli war.
Now, that resolution stipulates that there should be no arms other than those of state actors, and no armed groups in that area of southern Lebanon. But in the words of both the Lebanese government and the Israelis, as well as the Americans, 1701 has been a complete failure.
Still Mikati is saying that he is cautiously optimistic.
But there were some caveats.
He said that a ceasefire should come with American guarantees. But what that means remains to be seen. And he said that the Lebanese military will need additional hardware, additional weapons and logistical equipment as well.
It’s important to note here that Lebanon’s Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri again said very forcefully that the Lebanese don’t want any changes whatsoever to 1701, not a single word. And of course, Berri is acting on behalf of Hezbollah in these negotiations.
Let’s also remember that it was only last week that Amos Hochstein was here in Lebanon. And he said that 1701 had to be implemented, but there were additional measures that needed to be looked at, that needed to be included.
Lebanon insists its army should implement UNSC Resolution 1701
Some may describe Mikati’s hopes for a truce as optimistic language, but the reality is that there is a major sticking point between the warring sides.
And that is the enforcement mechanism of UN resolution 1701.
This resolution was adopted in 2006 following the last major war between Hezbollah and Israel. And it calls for the Lebanese army to be deployed in south Lebanon alongside UN forces and for Hezbollah to pull back. When the US envoy Amos Hochstein was here last week, he said that the resolution was never implemented and said that we need a new mechanism. He did not elaborate further.
Lebanon’s parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who is the main interlocutor involved in these negotiations and who is representing Hezbollah, has said the Lebanese army will enforce resolution 1701. But what we know and what we’ve heard from Israeli officials is that they want a US role and they also want to be able to act if they see any violation or threats against their security. In many ways, this violates Lebanon’s sovereignty and it will be very difficult for the Lebanese government or Hezbollah to agree to this.
Netanyahu accused of ‘actively sabotaging’ Lebanon ceasefire talks
You have Israeli officials saying what they want is to be able to enforce UN Resolution 1701, and they want to be able to assess whether Hezbollah is abiding by its promise to disarm and relocate north of the Litani River.
And if not, they want to have free reign to act with bombardment and troops in order to enforce that.
Some are even talking about imposing some sort of a naval and ground siege from the Syrian border area, led by the United States.
Many people are bewildered as to how this can come about, more so because Israeli media leaked some of those elements and discussions overnight, drawing sharp criticism from outside the government, from former ministers who accused Netanyahu of trying to actively sabotage the talks.
What we’re hearing from the US representatives is that they’re working towards a ceasefire agreement with Lebanon and that it is within reach.
