SS: The draft proposal for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, reportedly under U.S. mediation, outlines a significant commitment to stabilizing the border region. Here are the major elements:
* Initial Deployment and Disarmament: The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would move to the Israel-Lebanon border and begin efforts to disarm Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, with IDF forces exiting within seven days post-hostilities. UN peacekeepers, in turn, would facilitate this transition.
* Military Presence and Continued Negotiations: The LAF is expected to maintain a 10,000-troop presence along the border. After the initial 60-day implementation phase, Lebanon and Israel would engage in indirect negotiations, mediated by the U.S., to further implement UN Resolution 1701 and address border disputes.
* Creation of IMEM: An International Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanism (IMEM) would be established to oversee compliance, with U.S. leadership and participation from European powers, regional countries, and UNIFIL.
* Israeli Enforcement Provisions: Israel retains the right to respond to threats from Lebanese territory, subject to consultations with the U.S., especially if IMEM or Lebanon do not address arms shipments or manufacturing within Lebanon. Limited surveillance flights are also permitted, under specific restrictions.
* U.S.-Israel Side Agreement: A proposed side letter would reaffirm U.S. support for Israel’s right to self-defense and outline the U.S. role in enforcing the ceasefire and overseeing Lebanon’s compliance.
As the draft gains attention, however, the White House’s response suggests that the proposal remains subject to ongoing negotiation.
>As the Kan report begins being picked up by other outlets, White House National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett issues a statement asserting, “There are many reports and drafts circulating. They do not reflect the current state of negotiations.”
Hezbollah: “We want Israel to surrender, then roll over and die. This is non-negotiable.”
This seems like it’s a really good deal for all parties involved? Israel retains the freedom to act, but only under self-defense. There’s a US-led IMEM to oversee the transition and aid the LAF.
Well, it’s a pretty good deal but the part about Israel retaining « the rights to respond to threats » is far too obscure. It’s already encroaching on Lebanon sovereignty, so having the US (the already totally not neutral state) only for consultations well it’s just going to be a dead end. Same thing for the surveillance flights.
I question if this is premature from Israeli perspective. It doesn’t have the capacity to completely dismantle Hazbollah, but it has done alot of damage, however most of these are done covertly prior to ground operation. The militery operation itself managed to clear a buffer zone along the border, but Hazbollah have largely decline to engage on Israeli terms. Fundamentally Israel have not effected any change that would improve implementation of UN1701. It’s an expensive exercise just to mow the lawns.
This seems premature. It’s interesting, when these sorts of conflicts start, usually the state prepared have massive first steps victories.
But I don’t think Israel has won yet, Hezbollah’s not dismantled, and every day this war goes on, Israel’s economy suffers, just a bit more. Hezbollah have a deep pool of recruits, millions of disaffected unemployed people in the middle east. They can probably keep holding out for years, literal years. Probably won’t see a ceasefire for a while. Even a Trump victory means nothing unless the USA directly wants to get involved.
One thing I’d add is that for Israel, US involvement is non-negotiable. It will not accept a mission led by a country who will automatically side with Hezbollah.
Although even then, given how Harris has remained silent on things like Hamas’ use of human shields, as well as her sympathy for bigoted protesters (apparently, given how she’s said their reactions to the crisis are understandable, one sided condemnations and a refusal to support human rights unless it can be used as a weapon against the world’s only Jewish state is understandable in her eyes), there is a good chance that once Biden leaves office, she will end up sabotaging the deal to harm Israel.
I know what I’m saying is going to sound conspiratorial, but the kind of person who says “They are showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza,” in response to protests full of antisemitic hypocriticy (protests where they only support human rights if it allows them to criticise Israel, only expecting Israel to cease firing, caring about what they allege to be an Israeli led genocide but ignoring Hamas’ genocidal origins, etc), I’m not confident of this deal’s long-term effectiveness. This deal means the US needs to stand up to pretty much the entire international community and use its power to oppose Hezbollah, and I have not seen Kamala Harris’ recent comments as a sign she’d be willing to do that.
And given how, if what the Wall Street Journal reported was accurate, she intends to fire prominent cabinet members and replace them with ones a lot less likely to be willing to stick their necks out and support Israel in something like this. A deal like this means you are going to be making enemies with most of the world because it means actually doing something about Hezbollah, and I have not seen Kamala Harris saying or doing anything to indicate she’d be willing to that.
TLDR, I’m somewhat confident that this deal will become dead once Harris comes into power. Given what she has said, in addition to what she hasn’t said, I do not believe Harris will adequately enforce the deal.
One question I have, though…Iran (and by extension Hezbollah) have such long-range missiles and drones that I wonder whether it matters to them if they are north or south of the Litani river. Maybe Iran just thinks its more prudent for Hezbollah to live to fight another day.
If I am Lebanon, no way I agree to this. You cannot allow another country to invade your sovereign territory at will. You will lose all credibility with your population. It will lead to instability.
This would actually end up strengthening Hezbollah.
9 comments
SS: The draft proposal for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, reportedly under U.S. mediation, outlines a significant commitment to stabilizing the border region. Here are the major elements:
* Initial Deployment and Disarmament: The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would move to the Israel-Lebanon border and begin efforts to disarm Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, with IDF forces exiting within seven days post-hostilities. UN peacekeepers, in turn, would facilitate this transition.
* Military Presence and Continued Negotiations: The LAF is expected to maintain a 10,000-troop presence along the border. After the initial 60-day implementation phase, Lebanon and Israel would engage in indirect negotiations, mediated by the U.S., to further implement UN Resolution 1701 and address border disputes.
* Creation of IMEM: An International Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanism (IMEM) would be established to oversee compliance, with U.S. leadership and participation from European powers, regional countries, and UNIFIL.
* Israeli Enforcement Provisions: Israel retains the right to respond to threats from Lebanese territory, subject to consultations with the U.S., especially if IMEM or Lebanon do not address arms shipments or manufacturing within Lebanon. Limited surveillance flights are also permitted, under specific restrictions.
* U.S.-Israel Side Agreement: A proposed side letter would reaffirm U.S. support for Israel’s right to self-defense and outline the U.S. role in enforcing the ceasefire and overseeing Lebanon’s compliance.
As the draft gains attention, however, the White House’s response suggests that the proposal remains subject to ongoing negotiation.
>As the Kan report begins being picked up by other outlets, White House National Security Council spokesperson Sean Savett issues a statement asserting, “There are many reports and drafts circulating. They do not reflect the current state of negotiations.”
Hezbollah: “We want Israel to surrender, then roll over and die. This is non-negotiable.”
This seems like it’s a really good deal for all parties involved? Israel retains the freedom to act, but only under self-defense. There’s a US-led IMEM to oversee the transition and aid the LAF.
Well, it’s a pretty good deal but the part about Israel retaining « the rights to respond to threats » is far too obscure. It’s already encroaching on Lebanon sovereignty, so having the US (the already totally not neutral state) only for consultations well it’s just going to be a dead end. Same thing for the surveillance flights.
I question if this is premature from Israeli perspective. It doesn’t have the capacity to completely dismantle Hazbollah, but it has done alot of damage, however most of these are done covertly prior to ground operation. The militery operation itself managed to clear a buffer zone along the border, but Hazbollah have largely decline to engage on Israeli terms. Fundamentally Israel have not effected any change that would improve implementation of UN1701. It’s an expensive exercise just to mow the lawns.
This seems premature. It’s interesting, when these sorts of conflicts start, usually the state prepared have massive first steps victories.
But I don’t think Israel has won yet, Hezbollah’s not dismantled, and every day this war goes on, Israel’s economy suffers, just a bit more. Hezbollah have a deep pool of recruits, millions of disaffected unemployed people in the middle east. They can probably keep holding out for years, literal years. Probably won’t see a ceasefire for a while. Even a Trump victory means nothing unless the USA directly wants to get involved.
One thing I’d add is that for Israel, US involvement is non-negotiable. It will not accept a mission led by a country who will automatically side with Hezbollah.
Although even then, given how Harris has remained silent on things like Hamas’ use of human shields, as well as her sympathy for bigoted protesters (apparently, given how she’s said their reactions to the crisis are understandable, one sided condemnations and a refusal to support human rights unless it can be used as a weapon against the world’s only Jewish state is understandable in her eyes), there is a good chance that once Biden leaves office, she will end up sabotaging the deal to harm Israel.
I know what I’m saying is going to sound conspiratorial, but the kind of person who says “They are showing exactly what the human emotion should be, as a response to Gaza,” in response to protests full of antisemitic hypocriticy (protests where they only support human rights if it allows them to criticise Israel, only expecting Israel to cease firing, caring about what they allege to be an Israeli led genocide but ignoring Hamas’ genocidal origins, etc), I’m not confident of this deal’s long-term effectiveness. This deal means the US needs to stand up to pretty much the entire international community and use its power to oppose Hezbollah, and I have not seen Kamala Harris’ recent comments as a sign she’d be willing to do that.
And given how, if what the Wall Street Journal reported was accurate, she intends to fire prominent cabinet members and replace them with ones a lot less likely to be willing to stick their necks out and support Israel in something like this. A deal like this means you are going to be making enemies with most of the world because it means actually doing something about Hezbollah, and I have not seen Kamala Harris saying or doing anything to indicate she’d be willing to that.
TLDR, I’m somewhat confident that this deal will become dead once Harris comes into power. Given what she has said, in addition to what she hasn’t said, I do not believe Harris will adequately enforce the deal.
One question I have, though…Iran (and by extension Hezbollah) have such long-range missiles and drones that I wonder whether it matters to them if they are north or south of the Litani river. Maybe Iran just thinks its more prudent for Hezbollah to live to fight another day.
If I am Lebanon, no way I agree to this. You cannot allow another country to invade your sovereign territory at will. You will lose all credibility with your population. It will lead to instability.
This would actually end up strengthening Hezbollah.
Comments are closed.