Ceasefire Proposal Sparks Concerns Among Lebanese Officials
The U.S.-led ceasefire proposal between Hezbollah and Israel has drawn skepticism from Lebanese officials, who view it as skewed in Israel’s favor. According to sources close to Hezbollah, the draft outlines a 60-day truce, with conditions that include allowing Israeli forces to operate in Lebanese airspace against perceived threats. A Lebanese security source stated that this proposal “fully reflects and adopts Israel’s position,” highlighting a fundamental issue for Lebanon. Lebanese officials emphasize the need to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1701 without alterations, aligning with Lebanon’s insistence on sovereignty and control.
U.S.-Led Monitoring and Enforcement Raises Questions About Sovereignty
The proposal calls for a U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) official to oversee enforcement, adding a significant level of American involvement in Lebanon’s domestic matters. This provision would establish an international monitoring body led by the U.S., which would oversee the truce and ensure compliance. However, Lebanese officials express concern that this clause permits Israel continued freedom in Lebanese airspace, undermining Lebanon’s authority and control over its borders. According to a Lebanese parliamentary source, Lebanon’s stance firmly opposes any deviation from Resolution 1701, which specifically restricts military activity in southern Lebanon to the Lebanese Army and UN peacekeepers. These terms raise fundamental questions about the extent of Lebanon’s agency in negotiating terms for peace within its borders.
U.S. Diplomatic Efforts Reflect Bias Toward Israeli Interests
The proposal aligns closely with the diplomatic efforts of U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein, whose support of Israeli objectives raises concerns within Lebanon. Hochstein, a former Israeli Defense Forces soldier, remains a central figure in mediating truce terms that appear to permit extensive Israeli operations within Lebanon. Few weeks ago Hochstein assured Israeli leaders of the U.S. commitment to supporting Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, which contradicted President Biden’s calls for de-escalation. According to political analyst Ramzy Baroud, “Hochstein’s loyalties are clearly on the side of Israel,” showing the lack of trust in his neutrality. This dynamic demonstrates a perceived alignment of U.S. policy with Israeli interests, complicating Lebanon’s ability to achieve an unbiased ceasefire.
Hezbollah’s Concerns About Ceasefire Conditions
Hezbollah, having suffered significant losses during recent escalations, has shown cautious support for a ceasefire without attaching it to a Gaza truce. The conflict, which has involved the destruction of Hezbollah’s infrastructure and weaponry, led the group to seek a resolution focused solely on Lebanon. However, Hezbollah’s leaders criticize the U.S. proposal for its failure to address Israeli violations, particularly in terms of surveillance and airspace breaches. A source within Hezbollah argued that “the draft does not provide measures to oversee Israeli air violations,” reflecting their hesitancy to endorse the agreement. The group views these conditions as inadequate for a balanced resolution, as they continue to advocate for a fairer and more regulated ceasefire.
Lebanese Government’s Stance on Ceasefire Terms
Lebanese officials remain steadfast in their position that any ceasefire must adhere strictly to the provisions of UN Resolution 1701 without additional conditions. A Lebanese political source stated that the government refuses to entertain terms allowing Israel broad latitude in Lebanese airspace for reconnaissance or pre-emptive actions. Prime Minister Najib Mikati reportedly met with Hochstein, affirming that Lebanon seeks full compliance with Resolution 1701, which limits military operations in southern Lebanon to Lebanese forces and UNIFIL. Lebanese leaders emphasize their commitment to maintaining national sovereignty, resisting any conditions perceived as concessions. Lebanon’s adherence to Resolution 1701 highlights its dedication to a fair and impartial ceasefire agreement.
Criticisms of the Proposal’s Impact on Lebanese Sovereignty
Critics argue that the current ceasefire proposal risks destabilizing Lebanon by granting Israel expansive rights to operate within Lebanese territory without equal protections for Lebanon. The draft has sparked concern among Lebanese officials, who see its terms as favoring Israeli security over Lebanon’s national interests. A Hezbollah-affiliated source stated, “The items proposed in the draft reflect Israel’s stance,” highlighting Lebanon’s concerns over sovereignty. The parliamentary source emphasized that the proposal creates an environment where Israel may justify continued actions within Lebanon’s borders.
The draft’s monitoring mechanism, which permits Israel’s pre-emptive measures, has led Lebanese officials to view it as a potential source of heightened regional tensions. The proposal favors Israel’s defense rights over Lebanon’s sovereignty, raising questions about long-term regional stability and diplomatic balance. The lack of enforceable provisions against Israeli airspace breaches suggests the proposed ceasefire may inadequately address Lebanon’s core security concerns. Lebanese officials caution that if the terms remain unchanged, the document may set a precedent for foreign influence that undermines Lebanon’s autonomy. This dynamic highlights Lebanon’s struggle to secure a ceasefire that protects its own security and political stability without ceding authority.
Israel’s Influence Over U.S. Policy in Lebanon
Israel’s sway over American decision-making remains evident, as its demands consistently shape U.S. actions in Lebanon, particularly regarding the ongoing conflict. High-ranking members within the Biden administration, including U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein, reportedly align more closely with Tel Aviv’s objectives than Washington’s broader interests. This alignment fuels criticism that American policy in Lebanon effectively serves Israeli strategic goals rather than promoting genuine stability in the region. According to Lebanese officials, the latest ceasefire proposal appears crafted to benefit Israel’s security agenda, granting Israel latitude to act within Lebanese borders under ambiguous “self-defense” provisions. This dynamic shows concerns that certain U.S. diplomats prioritize Israeli interests, raising questions about whether American foreign policy in Lebanon or Gaza reflects Washington’s interests or Tel Aviv’s priorities.
