Was the French paper published in full?
The second phase also stipulates “a cessation of Israeli airstrikes,” according to what the circles added. Will the Israeli enemy agree to it?! With regard to supporting the deployment of the Lebanese army south of the Litani, why keep this point unclear? Who will “support” the army, the Lebanese government or foreign countries? Which one specifically is America, France, or others, and why?
In the third stage, which stipulates entering into negotiations to evacuate the area between the Blue Line and the Litani River from the armed forces except for the army and UNIFIL, the same circles asked, how will this be achieved, and what is the proposed mechanism? Likewise, talking about supporting development in the south raises the following question: Why only the south?
Regarding the demarcation of the land borders, which will take place later through indirect negotiations, similar to what happened in the maritime border demarcation agreement, the circles indicated that the bargaining here will be higher. Meaning that the claim for sea line 29 was based on international law and technical study. However, since the state confiscated the decision to demarcate the borders and exercised it unilaterally without referring to Parliament or the people, the experience will now be repeated with the land borders. This is why the circles fear that the northern part of the town of Ghajar, Al-Nakhila, Shebaa Farms, the Kfarshouba hills, and even the point “B. One” and Ras Naqoura will be abandoned.
The same circles explained that the French paper calls all the occupied Lebanese territories “disputed areas.” This means that the issue is subject to negotiation or discussion, as was said, and therefore perhaps what Lebanon will get are the 12 points or even less, because the Roma will not get them back… nor will the “B.One” point. Compromises may occur at other points because we can no longer change the topographical features that have already changed.
When it was mentioned that the first French paper did not differ in substance from the second or “revised” paper, even though the first was rejected by Lebanese officials, diplomatic circles doubted that what was published was the complete paper, wondering: Where is the title they are talking about? As long as the paper was rejected by Hezbollah, and by the officials with whom Sigournet and others held talks, why give and respond, and put comments on it, if France will not take it into consideration?
As for the issue of the decline of Al-Radwan’s force about 10 kilometers from the south of the Litani to its north, for Lebanon and the party, it means removing the mountains from their place. What would be the benefit of placing such an item in the French paper? It is logical and natural for the party not to leave its land for any reason, as it is impossible to evacuate the land to the enemy, even if the Lebanese government did not announce this. As for the “Israeli” excuse that the residents of northern “Israel” will not accept return, the government itself ordered them to evacuate, and today it is using them as an excuse.
From here, it seems that the French paper was “born dead,” or perhaps it is a “fallen paper” because it is not suitable for discussion, and its goal is to set impossible, ridiculous, and refutable conditions. Hezbollah refuses to implement it because it harms Lebanese sovereignty, and treats it as a “loser” and not a victor in the military confrontations taking place today between it and the Israeli enemy since last October 8 until today. While the opposite is true.
[previous_post_link]
