Israel’s renewed focus on normalizing relations with Lebanon follows military successes against Hezbollah, raising complex questions about the feasibility of such efforts after decades of conflict. U.S. and French diplomatic initiatives, focusing on border disputes and prisoner releases, underscore the potential for change. However, Israel’s retention of strategic positions and Hezbollah’s current vulnerabilities may complicate the normalization process.
In recent developments, Israel’s efforts towards normalizing relations with Lebanon have gained prominence following its successful military efforts against Iran-backed Hezbollah during the latest conflict. Officials and analysts express concern regarding the potential pursuit of this long-standing goal after years of enmity. Notably, Lebanon has consistently proclaimed that it will remain the final Arab nation to normalize ties with Israel. Nevertheless, the current geopolitical climate raises questions about the feasibility of such a transformation.
The initiative for normalization stems from diplomatic engagements led by the United States and France, designed to address various contentious issues, including the release of Lebanese captives and disputes over land borders. This diplomatic push arose following the Nov. 27 cease-fire agreement, which concluded hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah and aimed to foster discussions between Lebanon and Israel regarding border disagreements, particularly focused on the 13 disputed points along the Blue Line, established by the United Nations.
As an immediate outcome of this renewed American diplomatic effort, five Lebanese individuals, including one army soldier, were released following their apprehension during the conflict. Official Lebanese sources indicate that the negotiations, supervised by a military committee tied to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, are concentrated on achieving the release of all detained individuals and rectifying border disputes.
The committee, co-chaired by the United States and France, seeks to facilitate Israel’s withdrawal from five strategic military positions that were retained past their initial exit from southern Lebanon in February 2023. A Lebanese official emphasized that Lebanon seeks a complete Israeli withdrawal, expressing resistance to any lingering occupation.
Conversely, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz publicly declared that the Israeli military would maintain a presence at these strategic points indefinitely, irrespective of ongoing negotiations regarding the disputed border areas. Retired Lebanese Brig. Gen. Hassan Jouni criticized Israel’s retention of the positions, asserting that they should have been vacated during the prior withdrawal and questioning Israel’s motives for maintaining control over them.
Academics such as Hilal Khashan from the American University of Beirut propose that increasing U.S. involvement suggests Israel’s ambition to secure a peace treaty with Lebanon. Khashan argues that without Lebanon’s commitment to such a treaty, Israel is unlikely to negotiate its withdrawal from contested territories. He further points out that Hezbollah’s military vulnerability and strategic failures may hinder its ability to oppose normalization efforts.
The Lebanese government remains dedicated to upholding Resolution 1701, which mandates Hezbollah’s disarmament and prohibits retaliatory actions against Israel. The group has reportedly experienced a significant decline in capabilities due to lost supply routes. Resolutions concerning the border dispute could further impair Hezbollah’s justification for continued resistance against Israel.
The potential for peace and normalization across the Arab nations, particularly between Lebanon and Israel, now faces scrutiny. Khashan speculates that Saudi Arabia is positioning itself to eventually pursue peace with Israel, although he cites skepticism regarding the realization of meaningful negotiations leading to Palestinian statehood.
In conclusion, Israel’s push for normalization with Lebanon has been reignited due to previous military successes against Hezbollah and the influence of U.S. diplomacy. Nevertheless, lingering border disputes and the presence of Israeli military at strategically important locations complicate the normalization process. While there are indications of potential changes in Lebanese political dynamics, true peace may remain contingent on broader regional considerations and the resolution of the Palestinian conflict. Thus, Lebanon’s path toward normalization is fraught with challenges yet marked by the possibility of change in the geopolitical landscape.
Original Source: www.upi.com
