Hochstein Yet to Resolve Disputes over Israeli-Lebanese Ceasefire Deal

US envoy Amos Hochstein, who is in Beirut for discussions on the proposed ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, is not expected to arrive in Israel on Wednesday as was previously scheduled. Gaps are still emerging between Israel and Lebanon regarding the freedom of action guaranteed to the IDF in the agreement, should Lebanon fail to comply with the deal and push back Hezbollah from south of the Litani River.

According to reports in the Arab press, the Lebanese and the Americans have acquiesced to Hezbollah’s firm demand to remove the UK and Germany from the monitoring mechanism of implementing Resolution 1701––which keeps Hezbollah north of the Litani River. Hezbollah only approved contingencies from the US, France, an Arab country––most likely Jordan, and the UN.

The reason Hezbollah refuses to let the Germans and the Brits in as peacekeepers has to do with their reputation as no-nonsense forces who cannot be cajoled or bribed.

Biden’s special envoy to Lebanon held another round of talks in Lebanon on Tuesday as part of the ceasefire negotiations with Israel and Hezbollah, amid an escalation in the rate of attacks on both sides. His arrival at this time illustrated that the talks continue to be conducted even under fire, with both sides seeking to make it clear to each other that they can continue to fight despite the desire to reach an agreement, and seeking to exploit military pressure to improve their positions in the negotiations.

After meeting with Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Hochstein said that “there is hope of reaching an agreement in the coming days,” and that “an end to the conflict is within reach.”

Hochstein added that he had “constructive talks” with Berri and that they “continue to narrow the gaps to the agreement.”

But Hezbollah and the Lebanese government are being vague about the content of the agreement that is being formed in an attempt to maintain room for maneuver in the negotiations, without being accused of responsibility for the failure of the talks. Lebanon also understands that the final terms of the agreement may change later, even after a ceasefire began, which would constitute an intermediate halt in the negotiations.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, announced that three attacks were carried out on the organization’s personnel and institutions in southern Lebanon during the day Tuesday and that four of its personnel were injured. According to the organization’s statement, the four injured are from Ghana and were hit by a missile that was “apparently launched by non-governmental elements inside Lebanon.” The IDF said that two UNIFIL posts were hit by Hezbollah rocket fire.

In related news, Argentina announced on Tuesday that it was withdrawing from UNIFIL, without explaining why. Is it possible that the Argentines have grown tired of being targeted by Hezbollah?

According to reports in Lebanon, the second major dispute between Israel and the Lebanese government concerns the enshrining of Israel’s right to self-defense, permitting the IDF to raid south Lebanon each time the local army fails to keep Hezbollah north of the Litani River.

The Lebanese government, dominated by Hezbollah and its agents, opposes this clause, claiming that the right to self-defense is already enshrined in international law and that its inclusion in a ceasefire agreement could be used by Israel to justify military operations and intelligence gathering inside Lebanon.

The clause would also free Israel to monitor Hezbollah maneuvers in Lebanon even before they turn into violations of UNSC’s Resolution 1701 which binds them to remain north of the Litani. Needless to say, the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese government is strongly opposed to this.

Finally, another deal breaker could be the war in Gaza. Hezbollah linked its unprovoked shelling of Israeli civilians starting on October 8, 2023, to the IDF campaign in the Gaza Strip, and therefore the terrorist organization may demand that this issue be addressed in the agreement if only to maintain its credibility with the Arab public at large, and not create the impression that it’s fighting on behalf of the “Palestinian brothers” was in vain.

Share this article on WhatsApp: