Lebanon and Israel, under US sponsorship, have commenced indirect talks to address border disputes and other issues from the 2006 war through the formation of committees. These discussions will not lead to normalization but aim to resolve specific outstanding matters. Israel’s recent release of prisoners underscores this diplomatic initiative, while ongoing tensions persist concerning territorial occupations and military actions in southern Lebanon.
Recent reports indicate that Lebanon and Israel have initiated US-sponsored indirect negotiations aimed at resolving long-standing border disputes and other issues without progressing toward normalization. Sources emphasizing that the formation of three committees will continue the implementation of UN Resolution 1701 clarifying, “These committees are not separate from Resolution 1701, and will not engage in direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel.” The committees will focus on resolving outstanding border issues and other matters remaining since the 2006 conflict, such as occupied territories and prisoner exchange.
An Israeli official stated that the objective of these negotiation committees is to establish normalization. The official elaborated that the upcoming meeting will involve the political leadership of both nations, signifying a new layer of official diplomatic engagement. An Israeli diplomatic approach aims to achieve tangible outcomes, potentially to be relayed by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to his citizens.
Within the framework of this agreement, Israel released five Lebanese prisoners on March 11 as a goodwill gesture, furthering the negotiations’ objectives which will also incorporate France in the discussions. US envoy Morgan Ortagus affirmed the goal of these talks is a diplomatic resolution concerning various outstanding issues, including essential border disputes and the locations where Israel retains occupation, breaching established agreements post-conflict.
Thirteen contentious points include locations such as Ras al-Naqoura and Alma al-Shaab, from which Israel was expected to withdraw following the 2006 warfare. Moreover, the ongoing Israeli occupation not only concerns land occupied for decades but also pertinent territories associated with recent military operations against Hezbollah.
Despite the ceasefire agreement facilitated by Resolution 1701, Israel continues operations within southern Lebanon, asserting the need to curb Hezbollah’s military capacities. In contrast, the Lebanese accord does not grant Israel the right to execute attacks within Lebanon, stipulating that the Lebanese army should dismantle military infrastructures of opposition forces south of the Litani River. Furthermore, Israel has raised concerns regarding Hezbollah’s alleged failure to fully withdraw from specific regions, adding complexity to the already strained relations.
In summary, Lebanon and Israel have initiated dialogue through US-sponsored indirect negotiations focusing on border issues and unresolved points from the 2006 war, without seeking normalization. The formation of committees to tackle these concerns suggests a continuation of discussions grounded in UN Resolution 1701. The process may facilitate future engagements while addressing significant matters, including prisoner exchanges and territorial disputes, although tensions remain high amid ongoing military activities and accusations.
Original Source: thecradle.co
