From armistice to peace deal: Hezbollah sees U.S.-Israel move against Lebanon’s Mechanism
Messenger
Whatsapp
Threads
Email
Print
X
Facebook
Despite the Lebanese government’s official position—articulated by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam—that it has not been informed by any international parties of any intention to bypass the “Mechanism” Committee in favor of an alternative approach, thereby dismissing recent speculation about preparations for direct trilateral negotiations, Hezbollah remains firm in its assessment that the United States and Israel have long been working to undermine the “Mechanism” format stipulated in the ceasefire agreement as a prelude to introducing a different framework.
Accordingly, a concerned source within the party says that the United States and Israel disrupted the implementation of the ceasefire agreement from the moment it entered into force, effectively granting Israel free rein to carry out assassinations, killings, and destruction, storm frontline towns, and prevent the return of displaced residents. This occurred despite the fact that the ceasefire agreement was designed to prevent aggression by any party and to allow the aggrieved side to submit a complaint to the committee, triggering an investigation and, following verification, accountability measures against the aggressor. Should this process fail to take place, the aggrieved party, the source adds, retains the right to defend itself using the means available to it.
It is well known, the same source goes on to say, that the Americans had objected from the outset to involving the French side and had preferred a partnership with the British. However, Beirut tipped the balance in favor of the French and compelled Washington to accept this arrangement reluctantly.
The source adds that the Israeli side, which on several occasions had expressed a concealed desire to remove the UNIFIL force from the south, was also working to exclude France from the “Mechanism.” “We (the party) believe that both the Israelis and the Americans have been working together to undermine the committee since its inception. In other words, both sides sought to obstruct any effective role for it in order to prepare the ground for an alternative. It did not take long for our warnings to be confirmed, as the Americans harbored a plan to impose direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, with the project’s prelude and mandatory passage being the transformation of the quintet into a tripartite framework. As evidence of this approach, the American side took it upon itself to obstruct the committee’s last scheduled meeting after Paris dispatched Jean-Yves Le Drian to participate. As Washington moved to suspend this crucial meeting, the Lebanese and French sides, along with UNIFIL, reaffirmed their commitment to two things:
First, they are ready to reactivate the committee.
Second, they are not yet prepared to move into the post-committee phase in line with American preferences."
The same source believes that although Lebanon’s presidency went as far as strengthening the Lebanese delegation to the committee by appointing former diplomat Ambassador Simon Karam, this was viewed by the Lebanese side as a preliminary step aimed at responding to American guidance, despite awareness of how difficult this path would be. However, the move came too late and proved of limited value, as the U.S. administration soon revealed its desire to go further—specifically toward direct negotiations culminating in a peace agreement.
What does Hezbollah view as the next central objective behind the American-Israeli push to alter the nature of the “Mechanism”? The source explains: “Israel, strongly backed by the United States, has three scenarios in mind. At a minimum, it seeks a revised armistice agreement based on a list of Israeli conditions. The intermediate option is a security agreement, similar to the model Israel has sought to conclude with Damascus. Israel’s preferred outcome, however, is a full peace agreement ending the conflict with Lebanon, modeled on its treaties with Egypt and Jordan. In our assessment, this remains difficult to achieve, as Lebanese opposition to such a path remains strong and acts as a deterrent, despite ongoing debate over the issue of resistance and weapons.”
In conclusion, the source identifies two possibilities: “either a modified armistice or the opening of the door to an agreement similar to the May 17 pact, which could eventually pave the way for a comprehensive accord. However, Israel’s immediate objective remains securing freedom of movement throughout Lebanon, while ensuring exclusivity of arms.”