Jeffrez to Beirut again … and the “party” links its weapon to the liberation of the south

Muhammad Shuqair wrote in “Al -Sharq Al -Awsat”:

The Lebanese are watching what the head of the International Observatory Authority will be carried out on the implementation of the cease -fire in southern Lebanon, American General Jassper Jeffrez, in his meetings, next Wednesday, with the heads of the Republic, General Joseph Aoun, the parliament Nabih Berri, and the government Nawaf Salam, to ensure that his understanding of Lebanon’s response with the implementation of the American -French agreement to end the war will be translated this time by pressure on Israel to save The agreement, and the launch of the Lebanese prisoners, or that his presence after a long absence comes in the context of its accompanying negotiations between Washington and Tehran, and seeing what was affected by the communication between President Aoun and the leadership of Hezbollah on restricting weapons in the hands of the state, and putting the decision on the railway when the conditions are available.

Lebanon adhered to the implementation of the ceasefire on November 27th, on the one hand, while Israel rebelled against the agreement, and it struggled in violating the Lebanese airspace, and it was accused of continuing its assassination of Hezbollah cadres, and its insistence on preventing the southerners in the border villages from using the ready -made houses to reside in it.

A prominent parliamentary source says that Israel is the one who disrupted the implementation of Resolution 1701 not to withdraw from the south, and its refusal to respond to international efforts to launch the Lebanese prisoners, although Hezbollah has not been able until now to count their number in light of the difficulty it faces in revealing the fate of the missing.

The source confirms to Asharq Al -Awsat that Lebanon does not mind negotiating with Israel, by following the political standards that it followed when it reached an agreement to demarcate the maritime borders between the two countries, under the auspices of the American mediator, Amos Hockestin.

He notes that negotiation with international auspices aims to stabilize the land borders between the two countries in compliance with the stipulation of the armistice agreement. He says that Lebanon has made its decision exclusively the weapon in the hands of the state, and that there is no return from it, and the communication between President Aoun and the leadership of Hezbollah, and that moving to the dialogue depends on the extent of Israel’s readiness to launch Lebanese prisoners and withdraw from southern Lebanon to the international border.

The parliamentary source confirms that the Shiite duo is relieved with the position of President Aoun, and this is what President Berri reflects in front of its visitors, and says that the Lebanese army has spread to support the interim international emergency forces (UNIFIL) in the region from which Israel withdrew in the southern Litani, and that Hezbollah is cooperating with it to the extreme. It reveals that the army was finally able to control some of the towns in the north of Litani, which overlooks its south.

The source believes that the army’s control of some towns in the north of Litani, specifically those from which the missiles were launched towards the colonies of Al -Mutlaq and Kraiyat Shamouna, came in cooperation with Hezbollah and against the background of cutting the road on Israel in their demand, and with American support, that these towns are located in the geographical scope of the southern Litani, and therefore they are covered by the deployment plan.

The source says that the party’s approval of the ceasefire, the implementation of Resolution 1701, and its support for the diplomatic option to end the occupation, and the exclusive weapon in the hands of the state, means that it decided to include its weapon at the dialogue table, provided that it is absorbed within the framework of the defense strategy. And he confirms that the Shiite duo, with a land tongue, will not hand over weapons before implementing the required conditions from Israel, and he will not abandon it without actual application to stop the fire and go to a dialogue about his fate.

In other words, this weapon will not be handed over without a political price, as the source says, and that the required price lies in the withdrawal of Israel, the release of Lebanese prisoners, and the cessation of its attacks and its exodus to the Lebanese atmosphere.

He notes that the weapon must be used as a paper to liberate southern Lebanon, as it alone raises the pressures that besieged the party by its incubator. He says that linking it to Iranian -American negotiations to improve the conditions of Tehran may not be accurate because it will not change from the reality of the political situation in the country.

Launching a dialogue or cutting time?
The same source asks whether to reach an agreement will reflect positively on Lebanon, from the point of view of launching the dialogue to reach an understanding remains limited to the exclusive weapon.

A Western diplomatic source answers the question by saying to Asharq Al -Awsat that the American general is currently seeking to cut time, and that his presence in Beirut comes in conjunction with the continuation of the American -Iranian negotiations, stressing that Washington’s pressure on Tel Aviv is in conjunction with reaching an agreement, otherwise the American administration will not move a finger, in the foreseeable term, to maintain the Israeli pressure imposed on Hezbollah to prevent it from rebuilding His military capabilities, although the siege imposed on him cuts the oxygen, in the political concept of the word, and will not be able to restore his military and security structure.

The same source says that the party leadership is wrong, in the event that it decides to deal with Washington and Tehran’s access to an agreement, as if it was a station that would return it to what it was before he decided to chain it to Gaza, who put it in his poor appreciation for the reaction of Israel, and resulted in the destruction of the south. He believes that the party is seeking to swap its weapon with its reconstruction, which is now topped by its priorities, and that its leadership is to be waved that it began to regain its strength aimed at raising the morale of its seedlings, without having a return, whether in terms of its restoration of the balance of deterrence with Israel or its recovery of the rules of engagement that did not prevent it from expanding its aggression.

Therefore, he is no longer a role for the party in the region, and that what matters to his leadership is to leave for the reconstruction of the south and its linking to the dialogue that is preparing for him to reach an agreement related to the exclusive weapon, because the party has no choice but to engage in the state project, provided that it turns into a political party led by its civil wing, after his military wing was mistaken in his appreciation for Israel’s response to its chain Political protection, and is sponsoring a distance negotiation to achieve the correlation between the exclusive weapon and the removal of Israel from the south.