AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): The seventh round of negotiations between the Lebanese government and the Zionist regime, with so-called U.S. mediation, recently ended inconclusively in Rome, with its continuation postponed until September 1. The negotiation process between the two sides appears to have become trapped in an endless and fruitless cycle, while the Zionist regime continues to bomb and occupy areas of southern Lebanon without any serious obstacle.
The proposals put forward in the Rome negotiations indicate that the main goal of the parties opposing the Lebanese government is to impose the Israeli enemy's demands, particularly in limiting the government's political and security functions, establishing foreign oversight over the country's citizens, and verifying their identity by an external body.
Negotiations Trapped in a Vicious Cycle
In this regard, explaining the proposals and what transpired in the Rome negotiations between the two sides, Salem Zahran, the director of Lebanon's "Media Focus" center, told ABNA, "The seventh round ended without a definitive result due to ongoing disagreements over implementation mechanisms and the sequence of commitments, especially regarding Israel's withdrawal and security guarantees."
He added, "Israel appears determined to make the dismantling of Hezbollah's military infrastructure a precondition for any tangible withdrawal."
Zahran emphasized, "In contrast, Lebanon is trying to establish a gradual approach, linking Lebanon's commitments to Israel's reciprocal steps."
He said, "Furthermore, Israel's internal political calculations, especially the proximity of elections, reduce the scope for granting significant concessions. Therefore, the negotiations currently resemble more of a process of managing differences and establishing negotiating lines rather than reaching a final agreement, as if moving in a vicious cycle."
Pressure on Lebanon Centered on Limiting Hezbollah
In response to the question of how the Lebanese government, by accepting the draft proposals of the U.S. and Israel, has aligned itself with the other side's demands to reduce Hezbollah's influence, the director of the "Media Focus" center said:
"Lebanon's acceptance to discuss U.S. and Israeli drafts does not necessarily mean accepting all their content, but it has placed the country in a negotiation process in which the issue of weapons and Hezbollah's influence is presented as an essential part of the solution. Thus, the focus of discussion has shifted from the principle of Lebanon's overall sovereignty to the question of how to reorganize military and political power in Lebanon."
He added, "The problem lies in the fact that any Lebanese commitment that is not matched by a clear and specific Israeli commitment could turn the negotiations into a one-sided process. Here, the government's room for maneuver depends on its ability to distinguish between what it accepts as a negotiation framework and what it actually commits to."
Zahran stated, "Given the current political and security calculations, relying solely on negotiations for Israel to retreat from its demands seems unrealistic. Of course, it should be emphasized that the focus is now on the Iran-U.S. negotiations, as any progress there will have repercussions for Lebanon and vice versa."
Implications of Israel's Preconditions for Lebanon's Sovereignty
Regarding the consequences of accepting Israel's preconditions for "dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure" as a prelude to withdrawal on the independence of Lebanon's decision-making, this Lebanese analyst said, "Accepting this condition as a precondition for withdrawal could place Lebanon's decision-making under the pressure of an equation that prioritizes fulfilling internal commitments before receiving a clear concession from Israel."
He added, "It could also effectively give Israel greater influence over the security and military priorities set by the Lebanese government. This creates a dilemma regarding the limits of national sovereignty, especially if Lebanon's actions are subject to evaluation or rejection by a foreign party."
Zahran emphasized, "However, from a negotiation perspective, as long as a balanced and reciprocal mechanism is not agreed upon, Lebanon can consider this condition merely as a request on the table, not a final commitment."
More importantly, any sustainable agreement requires clear and reciprocal commitments, not preconditions that impose political and security costs on one party. An important point is that the Lebanese army has decided not to participate in any internal confrontation with the resistance front, and this is a very important and fundamental point.
The Challenge of National Sovereignty and External Oversight of Citizens
Regarding the impact of accepting the clause related to "verification of Lebanese citizens' identity by a third party" on national sovereignty and the citizenship rights of residents in border areas, the director of Lebanon's "Media Focus" center emphasized, "If the goal is to grant a third party the authority to verify citizens' identity, this creates a sovereignty and legal issue regarding the state's role in determining citizens' identity and managing its territory."
He added, "It could also create an exceptional situation for residents of border areas, where their rights or movement become subject to a monitoring mechanism outside Lebanese state institutions. However, the assessment of this clause depends on elements such as the nature of the third party, its authority, the binding nature of its decisions, and whether its role is technical and temporary or broader. Therefore, this clause should not be judged separately from its implementation mechanism and the legal guarantees protecting citizens."
Zahran concluded by emphasizing, "In any case, preserving Lebanon's sovereignty requires that the state, even within any security or negotiation framework, remains the ultimate authority and decision-maker regarding its citizens' affairs."
**************
End/ 345E
