Representative Jamil Al-Sayyed ignited a wide movement with his post on the “X” platform, in which he touched on the file of negotiations with Israel, in conjunction with the existing controversy over ways to conduct the next political phase.
Al-Sayyed stated in his post: “In conclusion, without back and forth, if you put me between two options that have no thirds: to negotiate with Israel directly, or to negotiate with it through intermediaries from the state who buy and sell on my back, then I will certainly choose to negotiate directly on my own behalf, not through the state’s merchants and brokers.”
These statements come in light of the increasing intensity of political differences regarding the nature of any possible negotiating path, its conditions, and how the state will be represented in it, in the midst of escalating military and political pressures.
This position is considered among the most frank criticisms of the performance of some official institutions, as Al-Sayyed limited the matter to a difficult choice between “direct negotiation” and “negotiation through intermediaries,” expressing his rejection of what he considered to be a method that lacks transparency.
Lebanon is going through a delicate phase in light of the continuing military escalation in the south, and there is increasing talk about the possibility of opening a negotiating channel to contain the tension.
Opinions have varied internally between opposition to any direct negotiations with Israel, and supporters of limiting the management of any political or security track to the state, while fears are emerging that the negotiations will turn into an arena for internal skirmishes.
A number of Lebanese officials have stressed the need for any negotiation to lead to the preservation of Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity, while international demands to stabilize the ceasefire and return to diplomatic solutions are increasing.
