The “Pilot Zone” Project: The Enemy’s Test Will Be the True Measure

By Latifa Hosseiny

It is far too early to judge the pilot zone project or consider it a success. This is how retired Brigadier General Bassam Yassine, former head of the Lebanese delegation tasked with negotiating the maritime border demarcation, assesses the launch of the first phase of the pilot zones announced by the United States and the “Israeli” entity under the framework agreement signed in Washington.

Brigadier General Yassine’s assessment is based on the view that “the first day of this project cannot be considered an indicator of its success. It requires time, as well as a crucial second phase upon which further steps can be built—particularly one that includes the withdrawal from occupied towns according to a specific timetable.”

In an interview with Al-Ahed News, Brigadier General Yassine said that “the ‘Israeli’ enemy was the one that chose to begin with the villages of Froun, Srifa, and Western Zawtar, not the Lebanese state. Had the decision been in Lebanon’s hands, it would have demanded that the occupation begin its withdrawal from Eastern and Western Zawtar, Yohmar, Arnoun, Beaufort Castle [Shaqif], Kfar Tibnit, and the Ali Al-Taher area, considering these areas to be the true pilot zones.”

According to Brigadier General Yassine, the key criterion lies in implementation: whether residents will be allowed to return to their villages, how the success of the Lebanese Army’s role in Western Zawtar will be verified, and whether the verification committee will operate fairly or instead obstruct the return of southerners to their towns.

Brigadier General Yassine believes that the first step encountered no obstruction from either local residents or the Resistance. The "Israeli" side, however, committed its first violation by opening fire on the Lebanese Army.

In Brigadier General Yassine’s assessment, the political authorities now bear a particular responsibility, especially in the context of their ongoing talks and meetings in Washington. They should pressure the American mediator to move toward the second phase and begin the actual withdrawal from additional areas. Only then will it be possible to determine whether these efforts have produced tangible, concrete results or whether this is merely another chapter in the deception and lies to which the “Israeli” side has become accustomed- particularly given that its leaders have openly declared their intention not to withdraw from Lebanon.

He also stresses that the political authorities’ demand in Washington must be for an “Israeli” withdrawal from all villages in southern Lebanon.

Despite the above, Brigadier General Yassine told Al-Ahed that he does not expect the enemy to leave the areas it has occupied easily, unless it comes under significant American pressure. “We know that the Americans do not pressure it; rather, they facilitate its plans and advance its interests.”

He notes that if the withdrawal does in fact take place, it would serve everyone’s interests—the residents, the Resistance, and the Lebanese Army alike. However, he points out that this depends on the enemy’s seriousness and on whether it imposes reasonable or unreasonable conditions and demands simply to delay its withdrawal.

In conclusion, Brigadier General Yassine asks: “Will the withdrawal take place from just one village, while the enemy engages in stalling and procrastination- perhaps for years- before moving on to the second phase?” He adds: “This is something the political authorities should confront and strongly oppose. They should instead demand a clear timetable for the ‘Israeli’ withdrawal from all occupied territories up to the international border, within a reasonable timeframe that would allow the Lebanese Army to deploy and carry out its natural role.”