Dr. Hassan Marhej: Hochstein's demands contradict Resolution 1701 and aim to force Lebanon to surrender, impose harsh conditions on it, and violate it

Dr. Abdullah Nehme: There is a major diplomatic move to stop the war, but the solution that is sought to be reached is an “agreement from under fire.”

Suleiman Shakirat: Hochstein's visit comes within the framework of managing the American war against Lebanon and Palestine using Israel as a tool

Johnny Mansour: Israel is trying to exploit the current situation as a pressure card on the Lebanese government.. and negotiations may move soon

Tarek Wehbe: Washington leaves the arena open to expand Israeli influence and similar steps may target the occupied Syrian Golan

Yesterday's visit by US envoy Amos Hochstein to Lebanon was not his first since the start of the war, but this time Hochstein brought Israel's demands that it had delivered to Washington, which included its conditions for ending the war, the most prominent of which, according to many reports and informed sources, is "the freedom of Israeli flights in Lebanese airspace, and the freedom to carry out military operations to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its military infrastructure in southern Lebanon."

"I" spoke to a number of writers and political analysts to explore the objectives of this visit, especially at this critical time, who indicated that it comes within the framework of diplomatic moves to stop the war, but the solution that is sought to be reached is an "agreement under fire", as the Israeli escalation continues on the Lebanese front, with the aim of pressuring Lebanon to accept the Israeli demands, which are adopted by the American administration, which aim to impose harsh conditions on it and violate its lands by land, air and sea.

A number of analysts who spoke to “Y” considered that the demands carried by Hochstein contradict Security Council Resolution 1701, indicating that the United States is leaving the arena open for Israel to expand its political and military influence in the region, while others saw that Hochstein’s visit to Beirut comes within the framework of managing the American war against Lebanon and Palestine by using Israel as a tool.

last chance attempt

In turn, the expert in Middle East affairs, Dr. Hassan Marhej, said: The visit of the American mediator Amos Hochstein to Lebanon is of particular importance due to its critical timing, as it comes within the framework of a last-chance attempt to achieve a halt to the Israeli aggression on Lebanon before the American presidential elections scheduled for November 5.

He considered that this visit comes before the visit of Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati to Paris to participate in the Lebanon Support Conference on October 24, which will focus on providing direct protection and relief to civilians and supporting the Lebanese army.

Marhej pointed out that this visit was preceded by a statement from the American envoy in which he expressed the United States' desire to amend UN Resolution 1701, after Israel submitted a document of principles to the United States last week, including its conditions for reaching a diplomatic solution to end the war in Lebanon.

He stressed that the demands that Hochstein carried to Lebanon reflect the Israeli demands, which seek to prevent Hezbollah from rearming and preventing it from returning to vital areas in southern Lebanon.

Demands aiming at Lebanon's surrender

He believed that these demands carried by Hochstein aim to force Lebanon to surrender, impose harsh conditions on it, and violate its lands by air, land, and sea, which is something that Lebanon cannot accept, not just Hezbollah.

Despite the war that has been going on for about a month, Marhej stressed that the resistance in Lebanon has not been defeated and is still capable of confronting Israeli attacks, as demonstrated by several incidents, including preventing a comprehensive ground advance and launching missiles and drones, which recently targeted the home of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Caesarea.

Marhej pointed out that Hochstein's demands are in complete contradiction with UN Resolution 1701, and are impossible demands that aim to force official Lebanon and Hezbollah to make concessions.

He pointed out that the military escalation that followed Hochstein's visit reflects the failure of the negotiations and Lebanon's rejection of those demands, adding that the pressures exerted by fire will not be of any use, and that Lebanon, including Hezbollah, will not submit to the American conditions.

Marhej pointed out that the situation in Lebanon this time is different, as Lebanon has nothing to lose, and therefore it must face the challenges to improve its negotiating conditions, instead of submitting to Israeli dictates under the pressure of bombing.

Dangerous escalation in Lebanon amid intense diplomatic moves

Lebanese political analyst Dr. Abdullah Nehme said: "The American envoy Amos Hochstein arrived in Lebanon to hold talks with the Lebanese government regarding the implementation of Resolution 1701, which aims to stop hostilities. The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, also arrived on a similar visit to discuss the same file."

Nehme confirmed that there is a major diplomatic move to stop the war, but the solution that is sought to be reached is an "agreement under fire", where the military escalation continues until an agreement is reached on American terms, which is rejected by the axis of resistance in Lebanon.

Nehme referred to the "brutal escalation by the Israeli occupation army, where a massacre was committed in Beirut, and the regions of the South, Bekaa and the suburbs witnessed intense and violent raids, with the aim of forcing Lebanon and Hezbollah to accept the Israeli-American conditions. Although President Nabih Berri stated that the atmosphere of the talks was positive but needed some adjustments, Lebanon is today paying the price for those adjustments."

Nehme added: There are major obstacles standing in the way of reaching an agreement, pointing out that the war will not stop before reaching a solution, and that the coming days may witness a dangerous escalation in Lebanon as long as an agreement has not been reached yet, which leaves the future of the escalation dependent on the decisions of the two conflicting parties.

Extracting concessions from Lebanon and weakening the resistance

Jerusalemite political analyst Suleiman Shakirat said: The visit of US envoy Amos Hochstein to Beirut comes within the framework of managing the US war against Lebanon and Palestine using Israel as a tool.

Shakirat explained that the purpose of Hochstein's visit was to test the political situation in Lebanon and assess Lebanon's ability to withstand the destruction and killing caused by the Israeli attacks.

He added that these visits aim to link the air strikes to the rounds of negotiations with the aim of extracting official concessions from the Lebanese side, and deepening the internal divisions between the Lebanese factions in an attempt to weaken the state of popular solidarity around the resistance.

Shakirat pointed out that the United States is trying, through this pressure, to encourage its allies in Lebanon and the West to launch campaigns against the Lebanese resistance, under the pretext that the resistance has played its role in supporting Gaza, and that the time has come to stop the war on Lebanon to avoid further destruction.

Shakirat added: The American tactic depends on intensifying the air strikes on Lebanon after every failure in the rounds of negotiations, with the aim of paving the way for more destruction and killing of civilians, benefiting from previous experiences, such as what happened in Beirut in 2002 when the Palestinian revolutionary forces were deported into exile.

He also referred to the statements of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, which carry implications of the seriousness of the American position in finding political solutions, whether in Lebanon or Palestine, and at the same time legitimizing the continuation of aggression with the aim of widening internal divisions and weakening the resistance.

The ultimate goal, according to Shakirat, is to try to force the Lebanese resistance to cease fire in Lebanon separately from Gaza, unless it changes its position.

Israeli demands towards Lebanon are considered to be very high

Johnny Mansour, a historian and researcher in Middle Eastern affairs, said that the Israeli demands conveyed by the American mediator Amos Hochstein to the Lebanese government include two basic points: the first relates to Israel’s control over Lebanese airspace to exploit it for military purposes and monitor the airspace, and the second relates to Israel’s supervision of the implementation of international resolution 1701 regarding Lebanon.

He pointed out that these demands come under complex circumstances and are considered to have a very high ceiling.

He explained that Israel is trying to exploit the situation as a pressure card on the Lebanese government, as well as on the Arab parties that have begun to move to pressure for reaching a truce that prevents the escalation of military tensions in the region, which could lead to a wider regional war.

Mansour stressed that the Lebanese government, Hezbollah, the Amal Movement and other political parties in Lebanon will not accept these Israeli demands.

He expected that this escalation would lead to a lowering of the ceiling of Israeli demands, with the continuation of the bickering and evasions, whether from the Israeli or American side.

Negotiations will move soon to stop the escalation in Lebanon

Historian and researcher Mansour pointed out that diplomatic negotiations will soon move forward with the aim of stopping the Israeli escalation in Lebanon after the massive destruction that affected many areas, especially in Beirut. He pointed out that there are Israeli attempts to copy military methods previously used in Gaza, such as accusing hospitals of having tunnels underneath them containing weapons and money.

Mansour pointed out that Israel seeks to achieve several goals, including removing Hezbollah from the southern region adjacent to the border with Israel and up to the Litani River, and restructuring the international forces (UNIFIL) to play a greater role in monitoring the situation there. It also seeks to enhance the deployment of the Lebanese army under indirect international or Arab supervision.

Resolution 1701 is no longer sufficient to ensure stability in the region

Researcher and political analyst in international relations, Tariq Wahbi, confirmed that Hochstein's visit to Lebanon came within the framework of American pressure on the Lebanese government to abide by Resolution 1701, with reference to the possibility of adding new protocols to strengthen this resolution. However, Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who also heads the Amal Movement and is one of the poles of the Shiite duo in Lebanon, rejected these pressures, stressing that this matter requires a vote in the Security Council.

Wahbi pointed out that Resolution 1701, which was adopted in the wake of the 2006 Lebanon war, is no longer sufficient to ensure stability in the region in light of the current developments in 2024.

He added that there is a need to activate the role of the Lebanese army and security forces to control the borders and prevent the entry of illegal weapons into southern Lebanon.

Wehbe also highlighted the conference scheduled to be held in Paris on the 24th of this month, which aims to support the Lebanese army to enable it to implement Resolution 1701 more effectively, especially with regard to monitoring the borders and illegal crossings between Lebanon and Syria.

Speaking about the American political scene, Wahbi explained that the current American administration led by President Joe Biden, who is described as a “manager” in the absence of a president capable of making decisive decisions, is leaving the field open for Israel to expand its military and political influence in the region. This reality explains why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues his military operations, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or even Yemen and Iraq, amid a clear absence of effective international responses.

Wahbi pointed out that the current situation may push Israel to expand the scope of its military operations in Lebanon with the aim of "cleaning up" the areas it believes are a source of rocket fire towards Israel.

He also expressed his fears that Israel might take similar steps in the occupied Syrian Golan, where large military forces of up to 35,000 soldiers are present.

Despite the difficulties facing Hezbollah and other resistance forces in Lebanon, Wahbi believes that the battle remains unequal, unless the Lebanese resistance is able to surprise the world with its capabilities, as the Palestinian resistance did recently in Gaza.