[ad_1]
Ariz is also from Tel Aviv, and the President of Parliament, Nabih Berri, highlighted yesterday that the enemy affirmed, in the words of his Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi, as well as the Minister of Energy, Yuval Steinitz, who will lead the indirect negotiations with Lebanon, negotiations between the two parties will be direct. It raises more than one question mark and questions the goals of the Israeli-American “acceptance” of the Lebanese conditions for starting negotiations, which President Berri stressed were indirect. Does this approach mean addressing a broader and more comprehensive agenda than the issue of border demarcation, which in fact is a technical issue that is not supposed to have repercussions beyond it?
Furthermore, is this approach, the final fate of which has yet to be determined, related to Israeli support and support for US President Donald Trump in his decisive electoral battle by providing material to promote a new foreign policy success? ? What his administration has already undertaken through declarations in a festive and normalizing tone to announce the beginning of the negotiations, according to the United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. Is there an implicit condition agreed between the two allies, the Israeli and the American, to facilitate the initiation of indirect negotiations in line with the Lebanese demand? Please note that the range of hypotheses is widening, to more than one extreme hypothesis, linked to the sensitivity of the Lebanese party’s refusal to trade.
“Israel”, through the Minister of Energy, Yuval Steinitz, officially announced yesterday the start of “direct negotiations” with Lebanon on the maritime borders. Steinitz said in a statement that “Israel and Lebanon will begin direct negotiations with the US mediation to determine the economic waters between them.” “Our goal is to end the dispute over the demarcation of the economic water borders between Israel and Lebanon to help develop natural resources for the benefit of all the peoples of the region,” he added.
According to Steinitz, “the negotiations, decided in accordance with US efforts, including US mediation and the technical framework for the negotiation process between the two perpetrators, were agreed upon with the wish and approval of Israel.”
In turn, the enemy’s Foreign Minister, Gabi Ashkenazi, described the forthcoming talks with Lebanon as an important step, and thanked US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his staff for their “dedicated efforts. “, due to three years of diplomatic contacts that led to the beginning of” direct talks “with Lebanon, to define the maritime boundary line between it and” Israel “. “The negotiations would not have been possible without the mediation of the United States,” he said. And while Ashkenazi’s estimates of what is to come have “exploded,” he expressed his belief that “negotiations with Lebanon are an important step and would greatly affect the stability of the region.”
Israeli media sources (Channel 20, close to the enemy’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), and spectacularly pointing out Tel Aviv’s political and economic achievements, reported that in a “meeting held two weeks ago headed by the Minister of Energy and senior officials from his ministry, with the participation of officials from the Prime Minister’s Office and responsible officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministries of Justice and Defense agreed at the meeting on the Israeli conditions for the negotiations, while the advance between the two parties, Israel and Lebanon, was already registered shortly after Israeli conditions were determined, during the visit of US Under Secretary of State David Schenker. And here are the direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel that begin after the (Jewish) Throne holiday at UNIFIL headquarters in the Lebanese city of Naqoura.
In the context of the “influx” of headlines and official statements, Hebrew Channel 13 requested “a small deliberation”, highlighting in a report yesterday, that “the negotiations between Israel and Lebanon are limited to the dispute over economic waters, and there is no peace agreement between the two parties as happened with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. ” . The channel relied on the words of President Nabih Berri, in contrast to what is being pushed in Tel Aviv, to say: “Let’s calm down a bit. What happens very simply is that there are negotiations, mediated by the United States, that will begin regarding the demarcation of the borders of the economic zone of the two parties, the issue is not related to other issues, neither with peace nor with the Peace Agreements.
Regarding Hezbollah’s position on the negotiations, the channel stressed that “there is an implicit agreement on their part, but this does not mean”, according to the channel’s own report, “a change related to the tension in the North. The whole story It means nothing to Hezbollah, which says Israel is the enemy There is no change, only one avenue of negotiation related to the dispute over economic waters.
No one imagines that “Israel” would negotiate with Lebanon and refrain from imposing its will by military force were it not for the weapons of resistance.
In the samples of the media approach that looks beyond the maritime negotiations, the report of the newspaper “Haaretz”, which highlighted that “US officials hope that the agreement on the maritime borders between Israel and Lebanon will lead to a negotiation between the two parties, beyond the maritime borders, which “comes in parallel with the large-scale US-Israeli campaign to weaken Hezbollah, including its political position.”
The newspaper reveals, to which the majority of the Hebrew media and commentaries are silent when referring, that “Israel, like Lebanon, has no intention of worrying at this stage about the land borders between them and the 13 contentious points in these borders ”, which was later confirmed by David Schenker. In an interview with the Hebrew channel “Kan”, he said that “the land dispute is a separate channel”, without giving further details on that.
The victory of the logic of resistance
However, despite all the Israeli approach that can be explained in more than one direction, with an Israeli rush to invest excessively after the announcement of the indirect negotiation framework agreement between the two parties, Israel considers that starting negotiations is directly the better solution on His part, after He could not impose His desire to resort to force, to the impossibility of that, or, as always, to suffice by brandishing force to achieve gains.
In fact, what Israel is promoting and fighting, as evidenced by its promotion, is the other alternative option, which carries with it, and is also, an Israeli withdrawal that is inconsistent with Israeli trends and strategies based on imposing wills for the force or threaten them.
In recent years, as reported from Tel Aviv through its military and political officials, as well as in the media, the maritime dispute with Lebanon is a point of Israeli weakness vis-à-vis Lebanon, and this has been recognized by the Israeli military more than once, specifically the decline in its ability to protect its economic facilities in a show. The sea is different, in type and distance from the border with Lebanon, in case the dispute turns into an armed conflict with Hezbollah.
The same applies, and is a constant source of concern for Tel Aviv, about an armed conflict with Hezbollah on a background other than the navy. It is naturally compatible and would obviously extend to Israeli naval installations located in or near the “disputed with Lebanon” area. In both scenarios, the Israeli army does not have the capacity to protect its naval installations, with or without the corresponding Israeli capacity to damage Lebanon.
It is one of the achievements of the resistance to have weapons, specifically the qualitative weapon that Israel complains about without interruption. And it is an achievement, even without its actual use. By assigning Hezbollah’s advanced weapons to the defensive destination, the weapon will have achieved its objective simply by possessing it, especially when the enemy realizes that the will to use it for defense or to respond to defensive objectives is present in the resistance leadership. .
Whatever is agreed, and again, no one imagines that “Israel” would negotiate with Lebanon, refraining from imposing its will by military force, were it not for the weapons of resistance. As usual in the past, it was to impose political and economic will by force without hesitation, or less than that, threatening to use force to achieve objectives.
The Lebanese negotiator, in his indirect negotiations, although everyone understands the difficulty of negotiating with the presence of an impartial mediator, it remains for him to realize the strength, importance and presence of his negotiating letters among his negotiators, the Americans and the Israelis.
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
