A Lebanese diplomatic source revealed to Al Jazeera that Washington presented Lebanon with a preliminary idea to transfer negotiations with Israel to Rome, stressing that Lebanon refuses to hold the sixth round of negotiations in the Italian capital.
According to the source, Israel adopted the transfer of negotiations to Rome with the aim of liberating itself from American pressure, and seeking to produce a bilateral formula with Lebanon, in which the American presence would be at a minimum.
The source indicated that there is an Israeli attempt to evade the application of what are known as “experimental areas” before the Israeli elections, considering that targeting Nabatieh, and not implementing these areas, aims to continue emptying the south of its population.
He explained that implementing the agreement on the experimental areas would reverse the course of destruction, displacement, and the Israeli presence in the south, considering that the framework agreement represents the end of a phase, and that Lebanon seeks a security agreement that would consolidate the return of the displaced and stability.
The source pointed out that Lebanon stands before two basic entitlements in the next stage: withdrawal from the experimental zone, and the visit of President Joseph Aoun to Washington, in light of the continuing discussion about the mechanisms for establishing the ceasefire, the arrangements for the south, and the role of the Lebanese state in any negotiating path.
The source also revealed that Israel threatened to file lawsuits before the American judiciary accusing Lebanon of harboring organizations it describes as “terrorist,” in a move that reflects, according to the Lebanese reading, an attempt to increase political and legal pressure on Beirut in conjunction with the negotiation process.
These data come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar announced that the next round of talks with Lebanon will be held next week in Rome, at a time when Lebanon, according to the diplomatic source, insists on rejecting any negotiating formula that allows Israel to reduce American pressure on it or shift the path to quasi-bilateral negotiation.
The issue of “experimental areas” gains special importance at the current stage, because it is practically related to testing the ability of the framework agreement to produce tangible field results, starting with an Israeli withdrawal from specific areas, creating conditions for the return of the displaced, and establishing security, instead of the south remaining in the cycle of targeting and displacement.
Beirut considers that the success of this path must begin with stopping the Israeli attacks, respecting the ceasefire, and withdrawing from the areas into which the incursion took place, while Israel is trying, according to the source, to link implementation to internal, electoral, and security calculations, thus delaying the return of the people and keeping the south under pressure.
In the background of this discrepancy, the dispute over the location of the next round appears to be more than a logistical issue, as it reflects a conflict over the nature of sponsorship, pressure, and guarantees. Lebanon prefers to keep the track under a clear and direct American umbrella, while Beirut believes that moving the talks to Rome may give Israel a wider margin to maneuver and evade the implementation of commitments.
