Peloni: The result of the leaked proposal will be nothing more than a more egregious replay of the failed Gas Deal which the US forced Israel to accept to no benefit under the lame duck premiership of Lapid. The need to not repeat such a pursuit of failure is made even greater in wake of the Simchat Torah Massacre. The only settlement possible must result in Hezbollah complying with UNSC Res. 1701 and 1559. The Chamberlain-esque efforts to advance the interests of Hezbollah over Israel must be utterly rejected.
A ceasefire should not become an end in itself. The goal needs to be the security of civilians on both sides of the border. That is not what the leaked proposed agreement provides.
Lt. Col. (res.) Sarit Zehavi | INN | Mar 5, 2024
Lt. Col. (Res) Sarit ZehaviAlma Research Center
According to a report broadcast several days ago on Israel’s Channel 11, various Lebanese media reports carried new details of the plan being promoted by US envoy Amos Hochstein. The plan contains a ceasefire framework for Israel and Lebanon.
Hochstein is the US Special Presidential Coordinator for Global Infrastructure and Energy Security, and he has been conducting shuttle diplomacy between Israel and Lebanon in an effort to broker a ceasefire.
Alma information chart Feb 2024Alma
According to the reports, the framework will include three phases:
1. A ceasefire in Gaza that will lead to a ceasefire in Lebanon and will allow the return of residents, from both sides of the Israeli – Lebanese border, to their homes.
2. An increased deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces in the border area and stopping all overt military activity by Hezbollah south of the Litani River in Lebanon.
3. Negotiations regarding the land border between the two countries.
This is not the first time that details of such a diplomatic arrangement, proposed by the Americans or the French, has been leaked to the Lebanese media.
I’d like to take this opportunity to send an open letter to the American envoy, Amos Hochstein.
My expertise on Israel’s security challenges in the North, and my being a resident of the North, where any such arrangement will directly impact the security of my family and myself, makes me in my humble opinion, doubly qualified to send this message.
The proposed framework in question currently follows the same lines as those that guided failed UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (passed in 2006), and it continues to place responsibility on the Lebanese army to enforce the concept of “Hezbollah’s withdrawal, to the north of the Litani River.”
The Lebanese army has had almost 18 years to implement this decision. During those years, Hezbollah has only grown more powerful in south Lebanon. It has at least three times more missiles and rockets in this area. It possesses advanced anti-tank missiles and drones. And its operatives are the villagers, whose homes are used to hide this entire arsenal.
I have several questions for Hochstein.
-Lebanon is a crumbling state that has failed to appoint a president for a year-and-a-half. -Lebanon is in a deep economic, political, and social crises.
Why should the Lebanese army enter into a military conflict with Hezbollah in order to enforce the arrangement you are proposing? Why would Hezbollah agree to the agreement? And what is the meaning of the term “overt military activity”? Is military activity that is not overt, that which Hezbollah has been conducting for the last 15 years following the Second Lebanon War after the previous failed arrangement, allowed?
Does Hochstein really believe that Israeli families will return to live a few meters from Hezbollah after the massacre of October 7, when their security guarantee is the Lebanese army and the apparent absence of “overt military activity” by Hezbollah? Would he send his children to live in these places?
The proposed framework condemns northern Israel to poverty, unemployment, and desolation. Those who can afford an economic alternative will not return. Thus, it will be difficult to attract employers, business owners, and factories to the northern border area. Those who return condemn themselves to the daily danger of another massacre.
A ceasefire should not become an end in itself. The goal needs to be the security of civilians on both sides of the border.
Storing weapons inside and under homes does not bring security to the residents of southern Lebanon. Who will remove the rockets from these homes? Declaring Hezbollah’s so-called withdrawal will not bring security to Israelis. Hezbollah has an extensive underground network that will allow it to implement military plans, given the preservation of its military capability, whenever it or its Iranian boss chooses to do so.
Any future arrangement must include a deadline and an effective enforcement mechanism monitored by an international entity, and without preconditions set for Israel.
The aggressor here is Hezbollah, and it continues to repeatedly threaten Israel with a ground invasion, as well as the killing of its civilians, even after the war began.
I’d therefore like to ask Amos Hochstein not to abandon the security of Israeli civilians to Hezbollah’s initiative, and not to sell us a ceasefire agreement that is detached from the reality on the ground in terms of our security.
To see the updated toll the war has taken on Israeli society, click here.
Your eyes and ears on Israel’s northern border,
Sarit Zehavi at Alma Research and Education Center
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.