[ad_1]
There is no doubt that Lebanon needs to resolve the dispute over the exclusive economic zone that belongs to it on its southern border, to dedicate itself to exploring its oil and gas wealth in fields that are expected to be located in the southern part of that region. This is a conflict that arose after the Lebanese army discovered an error made by the delegation that was sent by the then Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, to Cyprus in 2007, which consisted in placing the main mark at point 1 while He should have put it in point 23 as the Lebanese army discovered when checking when the file was sent to him after More than a year organizing it.
There is no doubt that the resolution of the dispute over borders between states will take two sides according to the rules of general international law, either by consent or by trial. Satisfaction and consensus are formed through direct or indirect negotiation between them, and it works in the implementation of a basic rule of general international law that says that “states demarcate their borders”. Regarding judicial adjudication, it is through the countries in conflict that resort to arbitration or the international judiciary, a path for its implementation that requires the parties to agree to choose an arbitrator or the court, with the mutual obligation between them to enforce the arbitrator’s or tribunal’s decision, or the ability of one party to compel the other to enforce the decision, and finally the parties meet the conditions of international litigation to the extent that it can be legally interpreted as a kind of recognition mutual between them of the public moral personality of each of them.
There is no doubt that Lebanon did not resort to the option of necessity through indirect negotiation, US mediation and sponsored by the United Nations, except that it saw that this path is the least dangerous and bad and the safest to reach a feasible result with guarantee to implement what can be achieved, because Israel does not listen. It is not bound by any international body or international law, and is professional in breaking the law and evading the implementation of decisions of the international community, including the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or courts and tribunals international organizations, but the matter differs with them if America interferes and guarantees to reach an agreement and guarantees its implementation. Here, positive results may be more likely.
However, regardless of the observations and gaps that we have recorded on what has been achieved with America in terms of “indirect understanding of the framework for launching negotiations” with “Israel” (it was wrongly qualified in agreement), and far from the prolonged discussion on the issue in form, structure, origins and procedures, especially since we are We are not fans of this behavior in the first place, and we rejected it in the year 2000 and we were able to impose a non-negotiation formula that allows us to regain our rights, regardless of everything This is after we made reservations about it, because Lebanon has reached what it has achieved and will be found from 14102020, the start date of the negotiations mentioned above. A new experience is not easy, but it is not weak to go through it, and I repeat and repeat despite our great statements on stage that led to what we have become, because the Lebanese delegation now needs all the support and national support. , because national cohesion with the negotiating delegation would sharpen the delegation’s will and increase its strength. His morale confirms his self-confidence and encourages him to firmly defend national rights without submitting to any pressure of any kind and for which the enemy could benefit.
The Lebanese national military delegation deserves all the support in its new experience in its indirect negotiations with the Israeli enemy so that it can seize and then use the sources of force that make it more powerful and solidify its position, and has registered as it has announced official positions and categorical directives have been crystallized that the Lebanese military delegation feeds on lawyers and consultants. Politicians and non-diplomats have organized and defined their work program in the mission that has been entrusted to them with clear foundations. The statement from the Army Command defined its features by mentioning that the Army Commander, in his instructions to the delegation, stated that “the objective of the negotiation was to demarcate the maritime borders from the line that starts from the point of Naqoura by land and It extends By sea, according to the midline technique, without taking into account any impact on the coastal islands of occupied Palestine, based on a study prepared by the Army Command in accordance with international laws. Consequently, the Lebanese delegation will be governed in its work by the following:
1- Mission and theme. Lebanon, in its indirect negotiations with the Israeli enemy, will adhere to an issue, which is the demarcation of maritime borders and the solution of the dispute over ownership of the area defined in 862 km2, which is formed from its triangle of three heads, points 1-23-B1, and that the mission of the delegation is an exclusivity that cannot go further so as not to damage the borders. Nothing of a political nature is talked about neither near nor far.
2- Form: There will be no dialogue or contact or direct discussion between the Lebanese and Israeli delegations even if they are united by the same roof, and it is better that each delegation is in a separate room from the room of the other delegation and the mediator is a messenger between them, and there will be no signature on a single statement that collects a signature. Rather, there will be a record of two identical copies, one signed by Lebanon with the sponsor and the mediator, and the other signed by “Israel” with the sponsor and mediator as well.
3- Limitations of understanding on the framework of the negotiations. It was clear to the Lebanese delegation, through the directives it received from their heads at the political and military levels, that what was neglected in the framework understanding or what was used inappropriately in this understanding would not constitute restrictions on the delegation nor would it diminish the value of the Lebanese right to have it. Rather, the delegation should stick to its legal references. And in military terms, as well as acquired Lebanese rights.
4- Preliminary Procedures: It has become clear and even obvious that Lebanon will not discuss maritime demarcation until it corrects the location of point B1 and returns it to its place on the rock of Ras Naqoura after Israel manipulated it and moved it towards the north a distance of 25 meters. The demarcation of the maritime borders should be the starting point on land At the site specified by the “Bouillier Newcomb” agreement, the Lebanese delegation will not stop in the debate on land demarcation and maritime demarcation because land demarcation is not necessary , since it has existed since 1923, but the delegation will be obliged to eliminate the aggression from the land borders in order to launch correctly. Towards the demarcation of the maritime limits that depart from point B1 after returning them to their correct location according to the agreement.
5- Reaction to the possibility of derailing the negotiations. The Lebanese delegation will not be obliged to remain on the negotiating council, but it will be obliged to leave it when it perceives a deviation from the subject, a break in form, complacency or partiality on the part of the sponsor or mediator, and the Lebanese delegation will always remember that it is not weak and has basic roles of force that affirm the rights it claims. And he wants to enshrine it based on those documents that begin with the Pauli Newcomb Agreement of 1923, the Armistice Agreement in 1949, and then Resolution 425, then the Law of the Sea 1984 and finally Resolution 1701, documents that constitute his legal weapons. they are supplied by the material force formed by the trilogy of the people, the army and the resistance.
6 – The delegation will remember at every step, word, signal or insinuation that the enemy will lay ambushes and traps for it and will attract it towards what it does not want or has not delegated to it by the political authority, while seeking normalization and recognition, and the establishment of a peace of submission renouncing rights, and all that. It will be rejected by Lebanon and its negotiating delegation, which will insist that the negotiations are indirect negotiations to demarcate exclusively free borders between Lebanon and Palestine, which is occupied by the enemy Israeli entity, which Lebanon does not recognize.
[ad_2]
