[ad_1]
Former US ambassador to Beirut, Jeffrey Feltman, considered that reaching a framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel under the auspices of the United States to initiate talks on the demarcation of maritime borders between the two countries is a good opportunity for the two countries can use their natural resources at sea.
Feltman, who also served as undersecretary general for political affairs and assistant to the US Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, asked if Hezbollah had facilitated the process to reach the deal with Israel announced by Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri to divert attention from its obstruction to the formation of the Lebanese government. Block negotiations at a later time.
In an interview with Al-Hurra, Feltman hoped that Hezbollah would keep the Shebaa Farms newspaper “as an excuse and excuse to preserve its military arsenal, which represents a threat to Lebanon.”
Why agree now?
There was hardly any deal in the past. When Elizabeth Richard was ambassador to Lebanon, and there was a great rapprochement between the two sides, so did Ambassador David Satterfield’s shuttle diplomacy between the two countries.
What has changed today, I think, is the American insistence that this issue can be ended, as well as the economic crises that Lebanon faces.
The first oil exploration operation that took place in Block No. 4 in northern Lebanon was not good and did not indicate the existence of sufficient gas reserves.
The prevailing belief today is that the southern blocks located in the disputed areas contain greater resources.
In addition to the general economic and financial situation in Lebanon, so that if Lebanon could commercially use the gas reserves at sea, it could provide long-term, rather than short-term, large resources to the Lebanese state.
Is there any link to the sanctions imposed by the United States on Berri’s assistant over the Lebanese decision?
I am convinced that the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, like Israeli officials, made this decision because they saw that it was in the interest of their national security.
Berri saw it in the interest of Lebanon’s national security to try to find a way to resolve land and maritime border disputes.
As for Hezbollah, I wonder if the party will allow the deal to progress without trying to obstruct it this time, as it has tried to obstruct similar arrangements in the past because it is trying to divert attention from a reality that has hindered the formation of a government in the Libano.
And I hope that when the UN-sponsored talks begin with US facilitation and mediation, we will see the two sides take a rational, constructive, and positive approach to resolving this issue based on years of previous talks.
I hope Hezbollah does not try to divert attention now from an issue that has obstructed the formation of a new government and then tries to obstruct the talks when they start.
Can Berri agree to dialogue with Israel without the green light from Hezbollah?
I hope that President Berri has consulted with all the main parties before accepting the framework agreement.
And I don’t think Berri, who is politically intelligent, accepted the deal without knowing whether he had a green light from Hezbollah or at least the absence of a red light from Hezbollah, his partner in parliament.
Why are the Americans having talks with President Berri and not with the Lebanese government or the President of the Republic?
You have to ask the US government which one has a good ambassador in Beirut. In recent years, talks have been taking place with President Berri on this issue.
Ambassador Satterfield spoke a lot with Speaker Berri. And so did Frederick Hof before that. Ambassador Elizabeth Richard spoke to Brie about this.
Even when I was ambassador to Lebanon, we talked about this issue on several occasions. Whatever the reason, we must give some credit to President Berri, the Israelis and the Americans to David Schenker and others who managed to reach this agreement.
Will this agreement prevent a future war between Israel and Hezbollah?
As an American, I hope that the Israelis and the Lebanese will find a way to end the state of war between the two countries and reduce the risks of a war in the future.
If the talks manage to resolve the issue of maritime borders and the issue of the thirteen reservation points through the Blue Line and resolve at least some land border problems, this may be a positive step, but it will not be the same as establish full diplomatic relations, such as relations between Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Israel, and recently between the UAE and Bahrain. And Israel.
Let us now turn our attention to building on the framework agreement to reach a solution to the border areas, which will allow the Lebanese and Israelis to benefit from their natural resources and avoid a possible miscalculation in the disputed area.
Will the agreement prevent the United States from imposing sanctions on President Berri or Hezbollah in the future?
Sanctions are a political tool that the United States uses to support a policy. And I think Washington will decide on future sanctions based on its belief that the sanctions will advance a particular policy.
I am now convinced that the Americans are focused on how to move forward, based on the framework agreement, in solving issues that almost led to the conflict and that prevented the use of natural resources by the two countries and that Hezbollah has used frankly. as one of his justifications on several occasions.
Anything that can be done to reduce the potential for conflict is good. Seeing how to solve border problems peacefully is far better than trying to use military means or missiles to establish facts on the ground.
Will the Shebaa farms be discussed between the Israeli and Lebanese sides?
You know how complicated the subject of Shebaa Farms is. The farms were occupied in 1967. When Israel occupied the Golan Heights, this area included the Shebaa farms, and the Lebanese did not raise the question of the occupation of farms at the United Nations or elsewhere until long after 2000. , after the Israeli withdrawal.
It is not part of the post-1967 Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel, it is part of the Syrian-Israeli lines.
I wonder if Hezbollah wants to stay and eat their cake at the same time it is said in English. It means that the problem of maritime borders is allowed to be solved through the US-sponsored framework agreement, so that Lebanon can benefit from gas reserves.
It can also resolve post-1967 territorial disputes, that is, the Israeli-Lebanese border, where UNIFIL forces have worked a lot in this regard with both parties, as there are only 13 points where one party has Bookings.
It may be possible to solve these border problems, but this does not solve the Shebaa Farms problem, which leaves Hezbollah with an excuse and an excuse to preserve its arsenal, which poses a threat to Lebanon.
