[ad_1]
And the writer added in her article that “in his book of notes issued weeks ago, former President Amin Gemayel narrates some of the details of the May 17 agreement between Lebanon and the Israeli enemy. Under the title” The following was more grande “, a paragraph is dedicated to explaining the details of the day before the date of the signature in 1983. Gemayel says:” We had not finished drafting the last articles of the agreement and we were preparing to sign it the next day, until a sudden blow that changed the whole situation at the last minute. On May 16, the head of the US negotiating team, Maurice Draper, requested to meet with me urgently. Notify me that there is a parallel message attached, which the Israeli delegate requested from the Americans to deliver it to us, which is supposed to be an integral part of the agreement. ” Gemayel points out that the letter “stipulated three new conditions not mentioned in the agreed text.” Regardless of those terms, it is useful, and Lebanon is on the threshold of indirect negotiations with the Israeli enemy on the demarcation of maritime borders under the auspices of the United Nations, reverting to precedents committed by the Americans and the Israelis. to sign agreements. This return is mandatory, regardless of whether the May 17 project is a completely different path to demarcation, but the enemy is the same, Be aware of the traps you can plant before the first negotiation session or throughout the process ”.
The writer added that “since the announcement of the framework agreement that was reached as a basis for the negotiation, many objected to the origin of the negotiation. Some objectors are hostile to any negotiation with the enemy, who fear to open any door to the entrance of” Israel “from” energy “after he was forced out through the wide door Some of them are nothing more than bidders for the Lebanese political forces. However, the fears of those who oppose any negotiations with the enemy are about to be fulfilled , as Tel Aviv was quick to seek to raise the level of negotiations, to political negotiations, while the Lebanese tendency is to turn them into technical negotiations similar to the experience of the Understanding Follow-up Committee. April (1996) and negotiations to demarcate the Blue Line after the liberation of the South in 2000 and after the war of July 2006.
The writer noted in her article that “the translation of these Israeli ideas began with the leak of information about the leadership of the Minister of Energy in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, Yuval Steinitz, to the Israeli delegation that will negotiate at the headquarters of the Forces International Emergency in Naqoura, as a way to raise the level of representation and give the whole process a political character. This first trap has overcome Lebanon by rejecting the presence of a minister in the enemy government in the negotiations, but it seems that Tel Aviv insists on this, by hinting yesterday that the minister himself can participate in the negotiations “as long as it happens! realize that the Lebanese side is stagnating! ” And worse than that, it is what a decisive Lebanese position needs is that the enemy presented its “abandonment” of the idea of Steinitz’s participation in the negotiations as an important step, but caught the negotiating delegation with a level no less serious. than that of a minister. The delegation will be headed by the Director General of the Ministry of Energy. This level can be considered technically. Parallel to the participation of the Head of the Administrative Authority of the Oil Sector in Lebanon. The enemy delegation includes the head of the occupation army’s strategic planning department, Brigadier General Oren Sitter. Also in this case, it is possible to bypass this level as parallel to the level of the deputy chief of staff for operations in the Lebanese army, who will lead the Lebanese delegation. But what Lebanon cannot accept is the inclusion of two personalities in the delegation, they are of the purely political level, that is, the political adviser to the head of the enemy’s government, Reuven Azar, and the head of the political system of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Alon Bar. At this level, it seems clear that the enemy insists that negotiations be political, not technical, as does his insistence that negotiations be direct. There must be a firm Lebanese position that prevents the transfer of the talks through the United Nations to negotiations of a purely political nature that discuss sovereignty issues. And it becomes understandable here also what the enemy tried to insert into the framework agreement, when he tried to add a sentence saying that the agreement on the limits of the exclusive maritime economic area is based on the minutes of the negotiation sessions. The Lebanese side rejected this phrase, because it means that the government will approve everything that happens in the Naqoura sessions in advance, so the phrase was omitted from the agreement.
The writer considered that the names of the delegation, announced last night by Steinitz, “The enemy wants to score more than one goal at the same time:
1- Impose a political level for the negotiations.
2- Embarrassing the Lebanese side, after accepting the principle of indirect negotiation, and throwing the ball into their court, accusing it of obstructing the demarcation that would allow oil and gas exploration in a promising area.
3- Embarrassing President Michel Aoun by holding him accountable to the Americans if he rejected the level of representation of the enemy in the negotiations, after President Nabih Berri announced the framework agreement devoid of political level.
4- Embarrassing President Aoun’s allies, the first of which is Hezbollah, who will be forced to take a position at this level of negotiation. It is not unlikely that the timing of the announcement of the hostile negotiating delegation’s political level is related to the issuance of a position by the Al-Wafa bloc for parliamentary resistance yesterday, which stated that “determining the coordinates of national sovereignty is the responsibility of of the Lebanese State, which deals exclusively with declaring that this land and these waters are Lebanese land and water. ” The bloc believes, contrary to everything that has been said here and there, that the negotiating framework on an exclusive issue related to our southern maritime borders and the restoration of our land, leading to the delimitation of our sites of national sovereignty It has absolutely nothing to do with the context of reconciliation with the usurping Zionist enemy of Palestine or with the normalization policies that it has recently followed. It can be adopted by Arab countries that have never believed in the option of resistance and have never practiced it against the enemy of the nation.
In this context, the author continued with her article: “It was remarkable that enemy media and their officials, as well as American diplomats, insisted that Hezbollah could fail in the negotiations.
Putting mines in the negotiation is not limited to the enemy. The United States of America also has its part. This was evident in the fact that the United Nations, at the request of the United States Under Secretary of State for Near East Affairs David Schenker, who arrives in Lebanon on October 12, decided that the opening session, according to information from “Al-Akhbar” would witness a commemorative photo that includes “the four parts together.” The representative of the UN Secretary General in Lebanon and the UNIFIL commander, the US delegation headed by Schenker, on the one hand the Lebanese delegation, and on the other the Israeli delegation. In this “commemorative” photo to be published in the media, Lebanon has never seen anything like it in the April 1996 Committee of Understanding meetings, nor in all the meetings that took place in Naqoura between the Lebanese army, the UNIFIL and the enemy army, since 2007, periodically. This image is precisely what the Americans are asking for, in order to achieve two goals: to confirm the idea of ”direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel”; The president of the United States, Donald Trump, awarded a new “star” which added to the “stars” he obtained from the normalization and alliance agreements between “Israel” and both the United Arab Emirates and the Bahraini regime. This matter, which some may see as a formality, is something that Lebanon should prevent from happening as well. “
According to the author, information was circulated indicating that “the Lebanese delegation will include, together with the military and experts, a diplomatic personality, noting that the internal Lebanese agreement provided for” technical negotiations “and” neither peace talks nor normalization “, according to the author. Schenker, and “it is not a step.” Establish diplomatic relations, “according to former US ambassador Jeffrey Feltman. Here the question arises as to what imposes on Lebanon to include a diplomat in its delegation, if the information is correct. Diplomacy is one of the means that expresses the extent to which relations between two parties have deteriorated or developed. A soldier at the head of the Lebanese delegation means that the issue of borders is still included, even in its negotiating part, “in the framework of the war.” The inclusion of a diplomatic personality in the delegation cannot be considered innocent, unless the diplomat is retired and participates in his capacity as adviser or expert.
The author of the article also pointed out that “among the mines that Lebanon could face and that the Lebanese negotiating party should not neglect are the minutes of the meetings that the representatives of the United States and the United Nations will prepare, and that will be signed by them. and forwarded to “Israel” and Lebanon for signature at the end of each When meeting, who would ensure that the two parties literally convey what the Lebanese side said or requested or would record their reservations in this regard?
The beginning of the negotiations is a serious battle, in which the team of the United States of America and “Israel” will strive for a great victory in it. This victory is recorded by the points starting from the form before the content. Any complacency in form means collusion with the enemy and the dishonest mediator. “
[ad_2]
