Israel is actively seeking normalization with Lebanon after weakening Hezbollah through recent conflicts, which raises questions about the future of Lebanon-Israel relations. Diplomatic talks facilitated by the U.S. aim to resolve issues like territorial disputes and prisoner releases. Despite tensions, Lebanon’s government remains focused on its commitment to resisting Israeli occupation.
Israel has recently shifted its focus towards normalizing relations with Lebanon following a significant reduction in Hezbollah’s capabilities during recent conflicts. This marks a notable development as Lebanon historically has stated it would be the final Arab nation to come to terms with Israel. However, recent cease-fire negotiations facilitated by the U.S. and France are attempting to address various contentious issues, including prisoner releases and territorial disagreements.
The United Nations had established the Blue Line in 2000 as a barrier confirming Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, but disputes over 13 border points persist. Additionally, five hilltop strategic locations were retained by Israel after its military withdrawal on February 18, despite a cease-fire agreement calling for their return. The ongoing diplomatic endeavors have led to the release of five Lebanese detainees by Israel, further complicating the situation.
The diplomatic push aims to tackle the release of additional prisoners and resolve border disputes. A five-nation military committee, aided by U.S. and French oversight, is addressing these focal points. Lebanese officials have made it clear that their stance includes complete Israeli withdrawal from their territory, but Israel appears resolute in maintaining control over the five strategic positions.
Retired Lebanese Brig. Gen. Hassan Jouni stated these positions should have been relinquished following the withdrawal. He suggests that Israel may wish to retain control for political leverage or security arrangements, possibly while seeking normalization with Lebanon. The growing dominance of Israel in the region could create pressure on Lebanon to comply with Israeli terms.
While some Lebanese officials dismiss talks of normalization as mere speculation, others highlight the importance of a commitment to a peace treaty for future negotiations concerning territorial disputes. Hezbollah finds itself in a precarious state due to continual military pressure from Israel, which is intensifying operations against the group’s infrastructure.
Khashan, a political science professor at AUB, contends that Hezbollah’s diminished status will limit its ability to obstruct normalizing ties with Israel. He posits that a resolution of the border dispute could further weaken Hezbollah’s anti-Israel position. The ongoing crisis in Syria has diminished Hezbollah’s supply chains, adding to its vulnerability.
Israel’s pursuit of normalization with Lebanon represents a significant strategic shift following the weakening of Hezbollah. Collaboration between the U.S., France, and regional stakeholders aims to resolve longstanding disputes while addressing prisoner releases. The fate of normalization appears contingent upon Lebanon’s diplomatic engagements and the broader regional dynamics, particularly regarding Saudi Arabia’s potential peace process with Israel.
Original Source: www.upi.com
