By Sondoss Al Asaad
BEIRUT — What is unfolding around Lebanon’s so–called “ceasefire oversight mechanism” is not a misunderstanding nor a technical dispute—it is a deliberate campaign of pressure.
Under American sponsorship and Israeli dictates, a framework meant to stabilize the border has transformed into a lever to extract concessions from Lebanon while Israel continues its occupation, violations, and military aggression.
Each Lebanese gesture is met not with reciprocity, but with escalation. The objective is no longer a ceasefire; it is compliance.
For the first time in four decades, Lebanon agreed to raise its level of representation in the ceasefire oversight committee from a strictly military officer to a civilian diplomat.
The appointment of former ambassador Simon Karam was made with full awareness that this move aligned with a broader and more dangerous agenda: establishing a direct, supra-military communication channel with an enemy that continues to occupy Lebanese territory, kill civilians almost daily, and destroy homes without restraint.
The decision came at the explicit request of Washington and Tel Aviv and was sold to Beirut as a constructive step meant to ease tensions.
Rather than de-escalation, the outcome was predictable; the Israeli enemy read the concession as weakness—and immediately demanded more. Shortly thereafter, the mechanism committee was effectively frozen.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri commented on the suspension, noting that the agreement was concluded with the Americans, the French, and the United Nations. In a press statement, Berri added that Lebanon is not alone in this state of waiting, but that the entire region is living in a condition of instability.
Well-informed sources confirm that no date has been set for its resumption, neither at the civilian nor at the military level.
At the same time, Washington and Tel Aviv moved to marginalize France, making it clear that Israel wants any engagement with Lebanon to take place under exclusive American sponsorship and without United Nations involvement.
Discussions about sidelining Paris reportedly intensified during French envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian’s recent visit to Beirut, with deliberate delays aimed at preventing his participation. This suspension is not bureaucratic dysfunction; it is calculated political engineering.
More troubling still are messages conveyed to the Lebanese presidency explicitly linking the reactivation of the committee to additional Lebanese concessions.
Israel refuses to discuss withdrawal from newly occupied points, the issue of Lebanese detainees, or even the cessation of daily violations. Instead, it seeks to confine discussions to “economic cooperation” within a vague regional peace narrative.
In essence, Tel Aviv is attempting to detach the ceasefire mechanism from military and security realities and from its ongoing war on Hezbollah.
According to this logic, the committee should not address security at all—a diplomatic contradiction deliberately weaponized to impose pressure.
Over the past two weeks, Israel has expanded its targeting north of the Litani River with a single aim: imposing forced disarmament in that area, replicating what it claims to have achieved south of the river.
The strategy is blunt: Israel pressures the Lebanese Army to confiscate Hezbollah’s weapons, enter its facilities, and destroy them—even at the risk of triggering internal confrontation.
Should this fail, Israel threatens direct military escalation through widespread airstrikes, similar to those recently carried out.
Reportedly, President Joseph Aoun and Army Commander Rodolphe Haykal have committed to taking “a step” north of the Litani ahead of Haykal’s February visit to Washington, while Israel cynically justifies its attacks by accusing the army of obstruction in the south.
Meanwhile, Maariv has claimed that Hezbollah halted operational coordination with the Lebanese Army south of the Litani and altered its field behavior—claims that clearly serve the American pressure campaign.
According to the Israeli newspaper, Washington may grant Israel broader freedom of action if Beirut fails to comply, while conditioning international military aid on “practical steps” and fixed timelines.
No comments:
Post a Comment