Lebanon concerned over Washington's leniency toward occupation, stresses that its promises need to be translated into action
Sources to “Al-Siyasa”: Cleaveland did not bring an Israeli commitment to ensure the success of negotiations
Chief of the US “Mechanism” Committee, Joseph Cleaveland, did not bring to Beirut what would satisfy Lebanese demands regarding the occupying Israeli state’s readiness to commit to a final ceasefire and to expand the scope of experimental zones. Contrary to the expectations of Lebanese officials that the visit of the US military official might bring a breakthrough in the negotiation file, it did not produce any fundamental change in the murky landscape surrounding the talks between Lebanon and Israel.
According to Lebanese government sources familiar with the visitor’s mission, who spoke to “Al-Siyasa,” the message carried by the US general, while affirming Washington’s commitment to pursuing the negotiation file to the end, left the core problem unchanged: the occupying Israeli state’s refusal to respond to Lebanese conditions concerning the expansion of the experimental zones. Moreover, Israel remains steadfast in its position of demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah before discussing any other issue, a stance that could return the talks to square one.
Based on statements from government sources, Lebanon reaffirmed its insistence on maintaining its positions, in contrast to the hardline stance of the occupying Israeli state, which insists that Israel must honor its commitments made in previous negotiation sessions. This requires the US administration to play its role as a mediator in the negotiation process with complete impartiality and integrity. Sources emphasized that Lebanon had expected a more active and robust role from Washington in handling the negotiation track, particularly as Beirut has not felt that the US administration is exerting pressure on Israel to implement what was agreed upon in the Framework Agreement. They considered American promises regarding the talks in need of practical translation, so that the Lebanese side can be convinced that Washington is equidistant from both parties; otherwise, all statements on the matter remain merely theoretical. This, in the view of the sources, necessitates further US pressure on Israel to avoid the collapse of the entire negotiation process. There is growing Lebanese concern over Washington’s leniency toward Israeli practices that hinder the negotiation file.
Discussions between Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and General Cleaveland focused on measures to implement the Framework Agreement reached during the Lebanese-US-Israeli talks in Washington, following Cleaveland’s meetings in Tel Aviv last week. According to Lebanese presidential circles speaking to “Al-Siyasa,” President Aoun stressed to the US official that Israel’s commitment to its pledges is a key driver for the success of the Framework Agreement. He emphasized Lebanon’s determination to maintain negotiation momentum until its objectives are achieved, including a final ceasefire, complete Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories, the release of all prisoners, and the commencement of reconstruction efforts. Aoun reiterated that Lebanon relies on the US role in pressuring Israel to honor its commitments and to stop its policy of evasion.
Lebanese officials rule out any substantive progress in the talks before the period leading up to the Israeli elections, particularly regarding the experimental zones, amid ongoing Israeli attacks on southern areas. These attacks continue a policy of bombings and the destruction of remaining buildings in villages and towns within the “Blue Line.” However, the most alarming development, which has raised Lebanese concerns, is that the US administration is adopting the Israeli occupation’s stance of continuing strikes on infrastructure in southern Lebanon, even in areas outside the southern Litani region, extending as far as the Bekaa. This targets tunnels used by Hezbollah, suggesting that the occupation is not intent on implementing what was agreed upon; rather, it aims to derail the talks, drowning them in numerous details that would not serve Lebanon’s interests. If such developments persist, they could push Lebanon to completely suspend its participation.
While the US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michael Isa, has affirmed that the talks between Lebanon and Israel are making progress, Lebanon remains wary that the occupation state is preparing to sabotage the talks or keep them in a stalemate until the legislative elections. This could bring the framework agreement to a dead end. Moreover, emerging developments could hasten its collapse unless the Americans intervene to salvage the situation before it is too late—an outcome that neither the Arab nor the international community, both of which support the continuation of bilateral talks and Lebanon’s efforts to ensure the state’s monopoly on arms and extend its authority over its entire territory, would permit. Conversely, despite political constraints and domestic pressures surrounding the negotiations, Washington maintains that the process remains positive and that the US-mediated talks will continue in Rome at the beginning of next month, alongside ongoing field work to implement the first experimental zones. Nevertheless, this has not dispelled the doubts still haunting Lebanese observers regarding the US administration’s ability to compel the occupation to honor its previous commitments and promises.
