Negotiation stress: Hezbollah accuses Beirut of violating the constitution
The first direct talks between Lebanon and Israel in several decades took place in Washington and immediately provoked a sharp reaction within the former country. Hezbollah accused the leadership in Beirut of violating the constitution.: as the deputy head of the political council of the movement, Mahmoud Komati, told Izvestia, such contacts are unacceptable, and the issue of arming Hezbollah is not subject to discussion with external parties. Meanwhile, the Lebanese Parliament allows the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, but only if a number of conditions are met. Experts doubt that the current negotiations can lead to political solutions.
Hezbollah's reaction to the talks
Amid the ongoing fighting, the first direct official talks between Lebanon and Israel in more than four decades, mediated by the United States, took place in Washington on April 14. The meeting was held at the level of the ambassadors of the two countries with the participation of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He described it as a "historic opportunity" to start moving towards a settlement, noting that complex issues cannot be resolved as soon as possible.
The meeting lasted more than two hours, after which Israel's ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, said that both sides were "united in their desire to liberate Lebanon from Hezbollah." The diplomat also noted that the Lebanese government allegedly "clearly stated": The country should not remain under the control or influence of this movement. In Beirut, however, such interpretations have not been officially confirmed.
Hezbollah accused the Lebanese leadership of violating the constitution due to direct negotiations with Israel. Mahmoud Komati, deputy head of the movement's political council, told Izvestia that such contacts contradict current laws that prohibit any form of interaction with the Israeli side.
— Direct negotiations with the Israeli enemy are unacceptable and prohibited, and we do not recognize what is called negotiations. The Lebanese President and Prime Minister violate the Constitution and Lebanese laws, which reject any relationship with Israel, especially direct negotiations. Moreover, their decision to engage in such a dialogue was a provocation for the Lebanese people," Mahmoud Komati told Izvestia.
The escalation between Israel and the Shiite Hezbollah movement has been going on since March, when it supported Iran by firing rockets at the territory of the Jewish state. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Health, as a result of the IDF strikes, the death toll exceeded 1.8 thousand, more than 1.2 million residents were forced to leave their homes. Israel is also suffering losses: 12 soldiers were killed, civilian casualties were recorded, two people died as a result of rocket attacks from Lebanon, and one civilian was the victim of a mistake by his own artillery in the north of the country.
After reports of a two-week truce between Iran and the United States, the Hezbollah movement announced the suspension of operations against Israel, but later resumed them in response to massive Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Tehran and Islamabad said that the Israeli attacks violated the terms of the ceasefire. At the same time, US President Donald Trump stressed that Lebanon was not included in the parameters of the agreements reached. Moscow, for its part, believes that the American-Iranian truce should extend to the Lebanese direction.
Musa Assi, head of the bureau of Al Mayadeen TV channel in Geneva, notes that the Israeli delegation at the talks in Washington has a limited mandate and is actually focused on the issue of Hezbollah's disarmament. According to him, she has no authority to discuss a broader political package.
He claims that the Israeli plan includes the phased establishment of control zones. We are talking about creating a buffer zone with a length of about 8 km in the south of the country, where displaced residents will not be able to return, as well as turning the territory south of the Litani River into a military operation zone with the task of dismantling Hezbollah's infrastructure. The third stage, as described by Assi, involves transferring responsibility for disarming Hezbollah to the Lebanese army in the rest of the country. At the same time, the key condition remains that the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops will not take place until the movement is finally weakened or eliminated as a military force.
Negotiations between Lebanon and Israel
The last time direct negotiations between the two countries were held was in 1983 after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when an agreement was signed to end the state of war. In the following decades, contacts between the two countries were exclusively indirect, through intermediaries, including the United States and the United Nations.
Marwan Abdullah, head of the foreign relations department of the Lebanese Kataib party, outlined Beirut's key priorities in negotiations with West Jerusalem in an interview with Izvestia.
— The most important thing is that Lebanon does not return to war. This is the first red line. The second red line is for the outcome of the agreement or the outcome of the negotiations to lead to the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. These are two extremely important things," he listed.
Marwan Abdullah also noted that Lebanon must fulfill its obligations to disarm Hezbollah and other armed groups, ensuring the restoration of full sovereignty of the state throughout its territory.
— Full-fledged diplomatic relations with Israel are certainly possible after the end of the war, the disarmament of armed groups and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. We have a number of issues to discuss: the demarcation of land and sea borders, the division of resources, as well as historical aspects of relations between the two countries," stressed the representative of the Kataib party.
At the same time, Hezbollah categorically rejects the possibility of disarmament. The movement told Izvestia that this issue remains an exclusively internal matter of Lebanon and is not subject to discussion with external actors.
"As long as the occupation exists and attacks on Lebanese territory continue, the resistance and its weapons will remain in place to defend the country and liberate every piece of land,— Mahmoud Komati said.
He added that discussion of a possible defense strategy can begin only after the complete liberation of territories and prisoners, the cessation of Israeli aggression, the return of residents to their homes and the launch of a large-scale reconstruction of the country.
The expert community evaluates the prospects of negotiations cautiously. Jamal Wakim, a professor at the Lebanese University, believes that the current negotiations between Lebanon and Israel are taking place under pressure from the United States and with the participation of internal forces opposed to Hezbollah, but they are unlikely to lead to significant political results. According to him, it's more about delaying the process without a real meaningful outcome. At the same time, according to the expert, the key red line for Lebanon should remain the demands for the unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied territories, the cessation of strikes and the provision of guarantees to prevent their recurrence.
The expert emphasizes in an interview with Izvestia that real negotiations on the Lebanese direction are conducted not at the bilateral level, but within the framework of a dialogue between the United States and Iran. The situation in Lebanon will depend on the outcome of these contacts.
There are also skeptical assessments from the Israeli side. Roman Yanushevsky, editor-in-chief of the website of the 9th Israeli TV channel, speaking to Izvestia, noted that the level of representation at the negotiations indicates the limited expectations of the parties from their results. The very fact that the delegations are participating at a relatively low level suggests that no serious bets are being placed on this format, although, if necessary, the status of contacts could be increased by involving more influential figures close to the leadership of both countries.
The expert also expresses skepticism about the substantive part of the dialogue, believing that these meetings are rather formal in nature. He points out that the key problem remains the factor of Hezbollah, which retains autonomy and refuses to disarm, effectively acting outside the control of the Lebanese state.
The conflict between the United States and Iran
The situation around Lebanon is closely linked to the broader regional context. Iran links the dialogue with the United States with the cessation of Israeli military operations against Hezbollah, considering the strikes as a factor undermining confidence in diplomatic efforts. According to Western media reports, a new round of US-Iranian talks may take place in the near future. In an interview with the New York Post, Trump said that a meeting in Pakistan is likely within the next two days.
At the same time, there is no single position within the American administration on the timing of the end of the conflict. Vice President Jay Dee Vance announced the readiness of the United States to move towards curtailing the operation through the negotiation process, while Donald Trump, on the contrary, is increasing pressure on Iran by imposing a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and threatening to resume active military operations in the absence of concessions from Tehran.
The AFP news agency reported on the passage of two ships from Iran through the Strait of Hormuz, despite the blockade declared by the United States. Earlier it also became known that the Chinese tanker Rich Starry, which is under US sanctions, passed through the waterway. As of April 13, at least four vessels had passed through the Strait of Hormuz.
At the same time, Trump stated that Washington intends to intercept any vessels in international waters that have paid for Iran's passage. At the same time, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) claims that in the first 24 hours after the restrictions were imposed, not a single vessel managed to break through the blockade of Iranian ports.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
