Israel has rejected a French proposal aimed at speeding up its withdrawal from southern Lebanon, choosing instead to maintain military presence in key areas. The U.S. supports Israel’s long-term presence, while Lebanon and France oppose any changes to the situation on the ground. Tensions remain high as the February 18 deadline approaches, with concerns about Hezbollah’s re-emergence in the area.
Israel has firmly rejected a recent French proposal to expedite the withdrawal of its forces from southern Lebanon, which suggested that UNIFIL and the French military take over in specific regions. Currently, Israel intends to maintain its presence in five strategic locations, as emphasized in a report by the Jerusalem Post on February 14. This is in light of an approaching deadline for withdrawal, set for February 18, which may be extended at Israel’s request.
Reports indicate that the United States has expressed support for a prolonged Israeli military presence in Lebanon, with Israel allegedly requesting a 10-day extension to its original deadline, thereby proposing a new withdrawal date of February 28. Concurrently, a Saudi report suggested an agreement between Israel, the US, and Lebanon for an extension, although this was denied by Lebanese officials, including President Joseph Aoun, who reaffirmed the country’s opposition to further delays.
Additionally, Lebanon has rejected the French proposal and any amendments to the UNIFIL mandate, as reported by Al-Akhbar on February 12. Israel, on the other hand, aims to secure a buffer zone by retaining military posts at five key border points, seeking US support for such an extension. The tripartite mechanism, formed to oversee ceasefire regulations, convened on February 14 in Naqoura to address military planning related to the transition of villages in the Southern Litani Area to the Lebanese army’s control before the deadline.
While Major General Jasper Jeffers, co-chair of the US Mechanism, expressed confidence in the Lebanese Armed Forces meeting their control objectives in the Southern Litani Area, he noted the intricate nature of the Cessation of Hostilities agreements. According to the terms of the ceasefire based on UN Resolution 1701, the Lebanese army was expected to dismantle Hezbollah’s presence south of the Litani River within 60 days, ending on January 26, alongside Israeli troop withdrawals.
However, Israel claimed that the Lebanese army had not fulfilled its obligations, prompting a request for an extension until February 18. In light of these developments, Israeli forces engaged in violent confrontations with civilians returning to their homes in Lebanon, leading to numerous casualties among locals displaced during the conflicts.
In summary, Israel’s rejection of France’s proposal to expedite its withdrawal from Lebanon highlights its commitment to maintaining military presence at strategic points. U.S. support for Israeli operations suggests ongoing complexities in the region’s security dynamics, while Lebanese officials firmly oppose further extensions or changes in UNIFIL’s mandate. The situation continues to evolve as ceasefire agreements and military strategies remain contentious.
Original Source: thecradle.co
