[ad_1]
In silence, an informed person assesses the indirect negotiations that took place in Naqoura between Lebanon and the Israeli enemy, with US mediation and UN headquarters. It says that in the rounds that were held, each of the parties presented their vision for the demarcation, but until today the stage of seeking solutions or an agreement has not been reached. Neither the American nor the UN intervened in everything that happened, except as a witness to whom each party would speak, on the basis that the negotiations were taking place indirectly, which is what actually happens under the roof of the negotiating tent. which was installed at the United Nations headquarters in Naqoura.
As a result, the source expects a long and complex road for these negotiations that “have not yet started.” Regarding the summary of the four sessions, it can be summarized in seven points in which the two parts differed:
1 – The Lebanese delegation requested the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Seas as a reference for the negotiations, which was rejected by the Israeli delegation for not having signed this agreement and not being bound by its rules and principles.
2 – The two parties agreed to adopt the demarcation agreement that was signed between the British and French mandates (1923), however, the disagreement arose in the reading of each part, especially because it did not precisely define the border points.
With regard to Lebanon, Ras al-Naqura mentioned in the agreement (the most prominent point of contention) is in the occupied Palestinian territories, and as for the Israeli delegation, the phrase “Ras al-Naqura” in the agreement is found north of the point specified by the Lebanese side.
3 – The Israeli delegation considers that it is impossible for the demarcation to start from a point of land, but must start from the sea. Their argument in that is that land borders are not demarcated and therefore it is not possible to adopt a point within borders that have not yet been established. The Israeli impossible is compared to the Lebanese impossible, since it is inconceivable that the demarcation of maritime borders starts only from land. Consequently, even if land borders are not demarcated, it is possible to agree on a specific point from which to start demarcation of maritime boundaries, taking into account that land demarcation is part of the framework agreement reached by spokesperson Nabih Berri, and therefore Therefore, once the demarcation of the sea is completed, the demarcation of the land is supposed to begin.
4 – The Israeli delegation insists that the island of Tikhlit should be taken into account when demarcation, but the Lebanese side refuses to consider it an island in the first place, especially since it is uninhabited and is hardly a rock. In addition to the consideration of the Israeli delegation that the absence of residents in “Tikhlit” does not prevent it from becoming an island, it is citing the Lebanese-Cypriot agreement that took that island or rock into account during the demarcation of the border between them. . The Lebanese delegation does not deny this, but recalls that the Sea Agreement distinguishes between the delimitation of two opposite states and two neighboring states, and therefore what is permissible here is not necessarily permissible there.
5 – Even assuming an agreement on the starting point and resolving the “Tikhlit” question, there is no agreement on the technology adopted to determine the course of the maritime boundary line. Please note that this process is carried out through specific electronic programs.
6- The Israeli negotiator continues to adhere to the agreement signed between Lebanon and Cyprus, as a starting point for maritime demarcation. He points out that as long as the Lebanese side has previously defined its economic zone in the agreement with Cyprus, it is clear that what is outside it is on the side of Israel. However, the Lebanese side, despite its confirmation that the agreement was signed by the government at that time, but according to article 52 of the constitution, any international treaty must be ratified by parliament, which did not happen. . Therefore, the Israeli argument does not fit its legal position with regard to Lebanon.
7 – The latest problem created by the Israeli Minister of Energy. The enemy delegation is headed by the director general of the ministry, so it is forced to take a statement from its direct official, who said that Lebanon changed its mind seven times.
Source: Elie Ferzli – News
