Lebanon Refutes Claims of Normalization Talks with Israel

Lebanon has dismissed Israeli assertions that discussions on permanent borders could lead to normalization. Sources in President Aoun’s office emphasized that the establishment of committees is strictly based on UN Resolution 1701, denying any direct negotiations with Israel. The talks aim to resolve historical disputes, while Israeli officials express a desire for normalization, which Lebanon firmly contradicts.

On Wednesday, sources within President Joseph Aoun’s office refuted Israeli declarations suggesting that discussions regarding a permanent border could pave the way for normalization between Lebanon and Israel. In a statement to Al-Mayadeen, affiliated with Hezbollah, these sources clarified that the formation of committees aimed at addressing conflicts over borders is in alignment with UN Resolution 1701, asserting that these efforts do not entail direct negotiations with Israel.

The Lebanese presidential sources further articulated that claims linking these committees to potential normalization are unfounded. The committees will focus on long-standing issues, such as border disputes from 2006, territories occupied by Israel, and the status of prisoners. The context for these discussions is enhanced by recent remarks from an Israeli official who indicated a desire for normalization with Lebanon, noting significant changes in the region and hinting at territorial discussions.

Additionally, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister’s Office announced a meeting involving representatives from the IDF, the United States, France, and Lebanon in Naqoura, citing a cooperative approach towards regional stabilization. The announcement included Israel’s decision to release five Lebanese detainees as a gesture to the newly elected Lebanese president, facilitating his political positioning domestically amidst tensions with groups opposing him.

The Israeli official outlined that the transition to a diplomatic framework for future discussions could signify an initial step towards Lebanese recognition of Israel. However, they made it clear that Israel would also maintain its territorial demands to protect national security interests, even while noting Hezbollah’s persistence in Lebanon. This nuanced approach aims to balance advances in dialogue with an awareness of underlying risks.

Concerns over the talks were expressed by David Azoulay, head of the Metula Regional Council, who cautioned against weak agreements that might jeopardize security. Azoulay emphasized the necessity of ensuring that any agreement includes the dismantling of terrorist organizations in Lebanon to maintain safety for Israeli residents.

Moshe Davidovich, leader of the Mateh Asher Regional Council, echoed these sentiments, advocating for a robust security posture as a prerequisite for progress in talks. He pointed out the limitations of relying solely upon diplomatic agreements without a corresponding military presence to ensure security along the borders.

Sources from Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Akhbar indicated that the recent release of detainees was not merely a goodwill gesture but part of ongoing negotiations. These sources noted that President Aoun had sought U.S. pressure on Israel to release detainees, emphasizing Lebanon’s evolving political landscape after extending a ceasefire agreement.

In conclusion, the dialogue between Lebanon and Israel remains complex and contentious. While Lebanon officially denies any intent towards normalization, recent meetings suggest a multifaceted approach addressing several critical issues under the umbrella of UN Resolution 1701. Key figures in both nations express varying degrees of concern regarding security and the implications of these discussions, highlighting a delicate balance between political needs and regional stability. Continued vigilance and comprehensive frameworks are deemed essential to navigate this intricate geopolitical landscape.

Original Source: www.ynetnews.com