U.S. proposal for Lebanon “ceasefire” looks more like a demand for surrender

The long-awaited ceasefire proposal presented by the U.S. and Israel to Lebanon is reportedly not actually a ceasefire at all and is instead being described by Lebanon as an “offer of surrender.” It involves amending UN Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war.

Arab diplomatic sources report that White House envoy Amos Hochstein was told by Israeli officials ahead of his arrival in Lebanon that they were unwilling to accept any type of agreement that did not meet their conditions. Although Hochstein’s team attempted to come up with a solution, they were ultimately “unable to find a formula” for getting Lebanon to accept Israel’s demands.

Hochstein reportedly told Lebanese officials that Beirut was “not in a position to discuss much, and that its failure to accept the proposal means that the war will continue and will be more severe.”

The proposal would see UN Resolution 1701 changed to make it an agreement “aimed at establishing peace on the borders between Lebanon and Israel and preventing any armed presence in the Lebanese areas near these borders,” according to Al-Akhbar.

Hochstein’s proposal reportedly calls for an expansion of the mandate of international forces in Lebanon, granting them the right to conduct “surprise patrols” and inspect any sites, homes or vehicles that they suspect are housing weapons.

It also called for sending inspection teams to Lebanese airports and establishing watchtower posts in the country’s northern and southern areas.

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri emphasized to Hochstein that he was unwilling to accept any type of amendment to UN Resolution 1701 and said there “is a Lebanese consensus to implement it, and that any attempt to amend it will destroy the opportunity to implement it.”

He wants the U.S. to find a way of implementing the resolution so Israel cannot violate it. A particular sticking point for Beirut appears to relate to weapons.

“Any discussion or research cannot address the resistance’s weapons outside the geographical scope of Resolution 1701, and that there is no room to expand this scope under any pretext,” according to Al-Akhbar.

Lebanon is also unwilling to accept international forces at the Syrian border, nor do they want any new countries to be represented in the international troops that are already positioned within Lebanon.

“Hochstein came to intimidate and to spread terror, and he was clear in everything he said that his country and Israel refuse to return to Resolution 1701 in its current form. He said explicitly that this formula is a thing of the past,” one Lebanese official stated.

One-sided ceasefire proposal will only make tensions worse

According to the Lebanese government, Israel has violated Resolution 1701 on more than 30,000 occasions since it was implemented in 2006 and continued encroaching on their airspace and territory in violation of the resolution.

In addition, the willingness of the U.S. to amend Resolution 1701 in a way that favors Israel and sacrifices Lebanese sovereignty is being perceived as a strong sign of its bias. Instead of helping ease tensions between Israel and Lebanon, the proposal is only worsening them and making a peaceful resolution less likely to take place any time soon.

Sources for this article include:

TheCradle.co

Axios.com