The US offers a ceasefire in the Middle East during the General Assembly


Getty Images Israeli airstrike in Lebanon on WednesdayGetty Images

After the US, the EU and 10 other states called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, the White House went into spin mode trying to build momentum for its proposal.

In a late-night Zoom conference that was so packed with reporters that some had to be turned away, senior Biden administration officials described the announcement as a “breakthrough”.

What they meant was that they saw getting agreement from key European countries and Arab states, led by Washington, as a major diplomatic success during the current crisis.

But these were the world powers that wanted a cessation of hostilities – not an end to hostilities themselves.

The statement calls on Israel and Hezbollah to stop fighting now, using a 21-day truce, “to give space” for further negotiations. It then called for a cooperation agreement in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, which was not properly implemented. It also calls for an agreement on the ceasefire in Gaza.

Beyond the three-week deal, it includes a series of already difficult regional goals. Some have remained inaccessible to embassies for nearly two decades.

In order to produce an agreed text, the Americans had the advantage of world leaders meeting in New York at the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.

But what “success” did not mean – as it has become very clear on the ground – is that Israel and Hezbollah had not signed anything at all.

Here, it seemed that US officials were trying to present the position of the two sides as more advanced than it actually was – possibly in an attempt to build public momentum behind the plan and pressure both sides.

Getty Images Biden speaking at the UNGetty Images

Asked if Israel and Hezbollah were on board, one of the senior officials said: “I can tell you that we have had this discussion with the groups and we see that this is the right time based on [ceasefire] call, based on our discussion – and they are familiar with the text… We will let them talk about their actions to accept the agreement in the coming hours.”

When pressed again on whether this means Israel and Hezbollah have signed it – especially given the fact that the US has no direct contact with Hezbollah – the official clarified that the US has spoken extensively about the document with Israeli officials and the Lebanese government ( meaning officials will communicate with Hezbollah).

“Our expectation is that when the Lebanese government and the Israeli government both accept this, this will be done and used as a cover for both sides,” said the official, who did not want to be named.

That sounded very promising. But after the late-night call, diplomats awoke to news of more Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon, including Beirut, and Hezbollah rocket fire into Israel. This week was the bloodiest day in Lebanon since the civil war; Israeli airstrikes have killed more than 600 people, including 50 children, according to Lebanese health officials.

Can the fire suppression system work at this time?

So how important is diplomacy, and can it lead to an end to the shooting?

The first signs are not good. The office of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, when he boarded a plane bound for New York to deliver his speech at the UN on Friday, issued a defiant statement saying that he had not yet admitted anything. It added that he had ordered the Israeli army to continue fighting “with full force”.

Lebanon’s prime minister, Najib Mikati, dismissed reports that he had signed a cease-fire agreement, saying it was “absolutely untrue”.

Instead, the joint statement created the groundwork for the international community to try to put pressure on Israel and Hezbollah to back down.

A lot of work will be done in New York before the week is out. And it will probably continue after that.

It is noteworthy that the Americans, who led the charge along with the French, used the words “immediate ceasefire”. After October 7, the US for months actively blocked resolutions from the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, until President Biden unexpectedly used the word and the US position changed.

Since then, intensive negotiations led by Washington have failed to reach a ceasefire agreement and the release of hostages between Israel and Hamas, and the US currently blames the lack of “political will” on the part of Hamas and Israel. Meanwhile, the US continued to arm Israel.

Getty Images After the Hezbollah attack on IsraelGetty Images

That doesn’t include the hope that Washington and its allies can now arm Israel and Hezbollah in a quick deal, especially given the fighting on the ground, the intensity of Israeli airstrikes and last week’s pager attack on Hezbollah, which has continued. fire in Israel.

On the other hand, the difference between this and the Gaza settlement is that the Israeli-Lebanon agreement does not include hostage negotiations, which has had an impact on the outcome of the Gaza agreement.

But the goals of each side are still very important. Israel wants to be able to return 60,000 civilians from the north and maintain security in the absence of daily rocket explosions in Lebanon.

Hezbollah wants to stop Israeli strikes in Lebanon where more than 90,000 people were displaced from the south.

The Shia group will aim to maintain its dominance in the country and its presence in the south while trying to ensure that last week’s bloodshed does not create resentment within the group amid Lebanon’s sectarian divide.

Finding an agreement between the two sides has already eluded Amos Hochstein, Washington’s ambassador to the Israel-Lebanon crisis, for months.

And this is where the US-led desire to get a deal quickly becomes difficult.

My understanding of the negotiations to reach the joint statement is that Washington pushed to ensure that it links the 21-day suspension to the creation of a negotiation period for a long-term settlement.

Namely, that the two sides negotiated for the implementation of Resolution 1701, which applies many conditions to Israel and Hezbollah. These include the group’s withdrawal from the Lebanese border south of the Litani River and, over time, the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Since 2006, each side has long accused the other of violating the provisions of 1701.

All this means that the objective, which has eluded the diplomats for nearly two decades, is now wrapped up in a temporary arrangement of calm between the two sides. As the missiles continue to fall, current diplomacy is asking more.



Source link

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top