Dr. Omar Rahhal: The paper ignores the real causes of the conflict and attempts to dismantle the unified position between the Palestinian and Lebanese resistances

Adnan Al-Sabah: The main goal of the Americans and Israelis in their current efforts is to break the unity of the arenas between the resistance factions

Dr. Tamara Haddad: Lebanon’s approval of the paper may indicate Iranian pressure on Hezbollah and the existence of a secret deal between Washington and Tehran

Firas Yaghi: The American paper is a political maneuver that seeks to serve Netanyahu’s interests to maintain the status quo until Trump takes over

Dr. Ashraf Badr: The paper lacks the foundations of balance, as it is unilateral dictates that do not take into account the principle of negotiation that guarantees the interests of both parties.

Samir Anabtawi: The American paper will not achieve success because it carries conditions close to surrender, which the Lebanese resistance rejects

The United States of America is trying to calm the situation in Lebanon by presenting a draft paper that aims to calm the situation there, amid warnings that the main goal of this paper is to try to break the unity of the resistance ranks between the Lebanese and Palestinian arenas, in the service of Israeli and American interests.

In separate interviews with “I”, writers and political analysts believe that the United States is seeking to manage the crisis rather than solve it, by trying to dismantle the cohesion between the Palestinian and Lebanese resistances.

Writers and analysts confirm that it is difficult to separate the Lebanese front from the situation in Gaza, especially since the statements of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah emphasized the importance of cohesion between the resistance fronts, as a testament to his continuation, and the sacrifices made by Hezbollah and the attempt to impose the terms of its surrender make it difficult to implement the paper.

They believe that the American paper lacks sustainable solutions, and that there are clauses in it that raise widespread controversy within Lebanese circles, especially those related to preventing the arming of Hezbollah and ensuring international oversight.

Washington is not currently interested in a ceasefire in Gaza or Lebanon

The writer, political analyst and director of the Shams Center for Human Rights, Dr. Omar Rahhal, explains that the current US administration does not seem serious about ending the aggression on Lebanon, as it is betting on the last moments of its life, and prefers to leave the files of the war in Gaza and Lebanon for the next US administration headed by Donald Trump to face.

Rahhal confirms that Washington is not currently interested in a ceasefire, whether in Gaza or Lebanon, pointing out that the latest American paper aims to grant Israel freedom of response and military action in Lebanon, which reflects a clear bias in favor of the occupying state.

Rahhal points out that the main obstacles facing the American paper lie in the fact that it is biased and does not offer any radical solutions, but rather seeks to contain the situation and manage the crisis instead of addressing it from its roots.

Rahhal asserts that this paper ignores the real causes of the conflict in the region and contributes to complicating the scene, and aims to create a gap between the Palestinian resistance in Gaza and its Lebanese counterpart, in an attempt to dismantle the unified position between the two resistances, which reinforces the idea of separate paths and partial solutions to circumvent the unity of the resistance ranks in the region.

Regarding the timing of the paper’s presentation, Rahhal believes that the United States is seeking to send messages to Arab countries and their allies in the region, with the aim of preempting any Arab or Islamic political move that could be proposed to hold Israel accountable or impose international pressure and sanctions on it.

Rahhal points out that this American step also comes to relieve the embarrassment of the Arab countries that have normalized their relations with Israel, which makes the paper a means of protecting these countries from criticism, especially after the recent Arab-Islamic summit in Riyadh.

On the other hand, Rahhal stresses that after the great sacrifices made by Hezbollah, and the continuous crimes committed by Israel against the Lebanese, it is unlikely that the arenas between Lebanon and Gaza will be separated, or that the Lebanese resistance will turn its back on the Palestinian resistance in Gaza, as the resistance in Lebanon realizes the sensitivity of matters and the importance of cohesion in confronting the Israeli aggression and is aware of the effects of the aggression from the beginning.

The war of extermination will continue in light of Arab and international silence

Rahhal asserts that as long as the Arab positions remain silent regarding the Israeli aggression on Gaza, and the international community seems unable to curb Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the war of extermination will continue.

Rahhal explains that the absence of international pressure on Netanyahu gives him a green light to commit more crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza, which means the continuation of the suffering of the Strip, and the escalation of Israeli settlement projects. Without decisive intervention from the international community, Gaza will continue to face the risk of genocide and ongoing attacks.

The unity of the arenas is the biggest obstacle to achieving the American project

Writer and political analyst Adnan Al-Sabah asserts that the ceasefire in Lebanon is not a decision that depends solely on the American or Israeli will, but is closely linked to the will of the resistance and the position that Hezbollah announced a long time ago.

Al-Sabah refers to the statements of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, before his martyrdom, which confirmed that the battle in Lebanon is deeply connected to the situation in Gaza, and that any ceasefire in Lebanon must be part of a comprehensive cessation of operations in all arenas of the axis of resistance, which has not been achieved so far.

Al-Sabah explains that the main goal of the Americans and Israelis in their current efforts is to break the unity of the arenas between the resistance factions in the region.

Al-Sabah points out that this unity constitutes the biggest obstacle to achieving the American project, which the United States seeks to impose through the last paper presented to the concerned parties.

Al-Sabah confirms that the terms revealed in the official Israeli media, although they may seem applicable on paper, lack basic guarantees, and the main challenge remains the continuation of the unity of the resistance fronts, which is something that Hezbollah will not accept to give up.

Al-Sabah refers to Hezbollah's firm position, which Nasrallah has repeatedly confirmed, that supporting the resistance in Gaza and solidarity with the various arenas in the axis of resistance is something that cannot be reversed.

Al-Sabah stresses that Hezbollah has enjoyed high credibility in its political positions and behavior over the years, which reinforces confidence that the party will not agree to any ceasefire that does not take into account the interests of Gaza and the unity of the arenas from which Hezbollah launched from the first moments.

Al-Sabah stresses that Gaza, at this critical moment, is in dire need of support and steadfastness from all arenas more than ever before, and that abandoning Gaza and leaving it alone to confront the aggression would be a step that no party of the resistance can bear.

Al-Sabah believes that any withdrawal from the resistance axis’ support for Gaza will not only be a stab in the back, but will also negatively affect the credibility of the resistance factions in the eyes of the peoples of the region.

Al-Sabah refers to the enormous pressures that Hezbollah is exposed to, both from within Lebanon and from abroad, and to the violent attacks launched by the Israeli occupation on Lebanon.

However, Al-Sabah believes that the party will not move towards a ceasefire without a clear connection to the situation in Gaza, while fully aware of the complexity of the scene and the great pressures that Lebanon is suffering from.

US administration seeks to ensure war ends before Trump takes office

Writer and political researcher on regional affairs, Dr. Tamara Haddad, explains that the draft paper presented by the US Ambassador to Lebanon is still under discussion among the Lebanese parties, as the draft came as an agreement between the current US President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump, with the aim of reaching a ceasefire before the transfer of power to Trump.

Haddad believes that the US administration is seeking to ensure that the current war ends before Trump assumes his duties in the White House, which is why it has presented this paper as part of intensive efforts to calm the situation in the region.

According to Haddad, the draft refers to clauses that have sparked sharp disagreements, especially with regard to Israel’s role in the event that the Lebanese army and international forces are unable to implement what is stated in the paper. These clauses revolve around two main issues: the first relates to the Lebanese army’s ability to prevent Hezbollah from arming itself in southern Lebanon and pushing it back beyond the Litani River, and the second relates to stopping the smuggling of weapons from Syria to Lebanon. The paper also stipulates the formation of an international committee to supervise the implementation of these clauses, consisting of the United States, Britain, and an Arab country, so that it coordinates with the United Nations forces (UNIFIL) to ensure the implementation of Resolution 1701.

Haddad points out that despite the importance of this paper, no official response has been issued so far by Hezbollah, which is witnessing a divergence of positions within Lebanese circles, as some parties tend towards conditional acceptance, while others continue to refute the terms and discuss them.

Haddad explains that these developments regarding the draft come at a time when Israel is suffering from military difficulties, as its army has not succeeded in achieving tangible ground progress, which has resulted in deaths and injuries among its soldiers, and has burdened the Israeli budget. In addition to that, there is the restlessness of the settlers who want to return to their homes, and the refusal of many Haredim to participate in compulsory conscription.

Haddad confirms that Israel fears entering a long-term phase of attrition, which prompted the United States to work seriously to achieve a ceasefire.

Haddad explains that the US administration believes that achieving this goal before the transfer of power to Trump will give him an opportunity to advance his agenda in the region, which includes normalizing relations with Middle Eastern countries and reducing wars while maintaining Israeli national security. However, if the paper fails to achieve tangible results, the war is likely to continue, which will constitute an additional burden on the US economy.

Haddad points out that Lebanon's approval of the paper may indicate Iranian pressure on Hezbollah to accept it, which means that a secret deal was made between the United States and Iran.

Haddad points out that the possibility of Hezbollah’s approval hints at an unannounced meeting between American businessman Elon Musk and an Iranian delegate, as data indicates Iran’s readiness to reduce its support for its arms in the region in exchange for economic gains, such as the nuclear agreement, lifting sanctions, and strengthening American investments in Iran.

Gaza will be the biggest loser

On the other hand, Haddad believes that Gaza will be the biggest loser in this equation, as its vision differs from Lebanon's regarding Israeli dealings.

Haddad explains that Israel has largely been able to weaken Hamas's military capabilities, while the war there is still ongoing.

Haddad expects that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will exploit the situation in Gaza to escape his internal impasse and corruption trials, expecting that he will prolong the war until he finds a suitable Palestinian administration that guarantees Israel's strategic interests.

Haddad points out that the proposed scenarios could lead to a major demographic and geographic change in Gaza, as Israel seeks to restructure the area to serve its settlement goals, while the Palestinian people in Gaza remain the main victim of these transformations.

The draft paper is "mined".

Writer and political analyst Firas Yaghi believes that the American paper that aims to end the ceasefire in Lebanon is nothing but a political maneuver that seeks to serve the interests of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who aims to maintain the status quo in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip until Donald Trump takes over the reins of power in the American administration and reaches the White House.

Yaghi points out that Netanyahu confirmed in a recent political security meeting that the coming period, which extends over the next two months, will witness a maneuver with the administration of President Joe Biden, stressing that this American card had been discussed in advance with Trump and his team before it was presented to the current administration.

Yaghi confirms that the draft of this paper is "mined" and includes conditions that Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance cannot accept, and that the main obstacles in it relate to the mechanism of supervision and monitoring associated with the implementation of Resolution 1701.

According to Yaghi, the first issue in implementing the resolution requires an Israeli withdrawal beyond the Blue Line and a cessation of air violations of Lebanese airspace, while obligating Hezbollah not to appear militarily in the south.

Yaghi points out that the second issue is the expansion of the agreement’s supervision committee to include countries such as France, America, Britain, and perhaps Germany. There is even talk of involving an Arab country, which means transferring the responsibility of monitoring the situation to the Lebanese army and UNIFIL forces, which could lead to a direct clash between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah, which constitutes a tight trap that seeks to transfer the strife to southern Lebanon.

Yaghi believes that the American proposals aim to paralyze Hezbollah's ability to move south of the Litani River, which he believes Hezbollah will not accept, especially since many villages in the south are suffering from Israeli destruction, and the Lebanese government is unable to rebuild them in light of its financial crises.

Here, Yaghi warns that the United States is seeking to reformulate Resolution 1701 in a new way, through a monitoring mechanism that is clearly biased in favor of Israel.

Any separate agreement in Lebanon will mean leaving Gaza alone

On another level, Yaghi explains that any separate agreement in Lebanon would mean leaving Gaza alone, but he points out that the Lebanese resistance does not seem to be heading towards a separate deal, which strengthens the unity of the fronts between Lebanon and Gaza.

In the same context, Yaghi points out that Netanyahu seeks to achieve a comprehensive deal with Trump that includes both Gaza and the West Bank and normalization with Arab countries, most notably Saudi Arabia.

Yaghi asserts that Netanyahu prefers to postpone any ceasefire agreements so that he can present them as a gift to Trump when he returns to power.

Yaghi points out that Netanyahu realizes that the Lebanese front puts him in a difficult position, especially with the continued attacks on the Israeli interior, and the resulting psychological, economic and security repercussions on Israeli society. The military operations in the north and south cause deaths and injuries, force Israelis to take refuge in shelters, and freeze economic activity in large areas, which leads to destabilizing the state and undermines the claim that it has been a safe haven for Jews since its founding in 1948.

Regarding Gaza, Yaghi believes that the Palestinian resistance will continue to fight in defense of its cause, because the essence of the current conflict revolves around liquidating the Palestinian cause by eliminating the resistance in the Strip.

Yaghi points out that Israel plans to annex the West Bank first and then Judaize the holy sites in Jerusalem, which cannot happen unless the resistance in Gaza is broken, which is what Israel seeks to achieve, despite its exhaustion on the southern and northern fronts.

Yaghi warns that the next Trump government will be fully supportive of Netanyahu's plans, especially since Trump's new team consists of extremist figures, whether against Iran and China, or in support of settlement in the West Bank.

Yaghi notes that the new US ambassador to Israel, David Hakavy, who was appointed by Trump, expresses these trends through his belief that the West Bank is “Judea and Samaria” and not Palestinian land.

Yaghi points out the real dangers of Trump's support for Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, even if it is limited to strategic areas such as the Jordan Valley, the Gush Etzion settlements, and Ma'ale Adumim, stressing that this scenario poses a serious threat.

The American paper is unlikely to succeed.

The writer and political analyst specializing in Israeli affairs, Dr. Ashraf Badr, believes that it is unlikely that the American paper proposed to calm the situation in Lebanon will succeed, considering it a document that reflects the Israeli vision and conditions, which were agreed upon with the United States to impose on the Lebanese side, which is not based on negotiations between the two parties to the conflict.

Badr explains that this paper is based on a false assumption, which is that Hezbollah and the Lebanese resistance have suffered a defeat that requires their surrender and acceptance of Israeli conditions. However, on the contrary, Hezbollah insists that it has not been defeated despite the large difference in the balance of power between the two parties, which makes the chances of the paper’s success very slim unless the resistance submits to Israeli conditions that include limiting its movements and targeting it for security reasons, which is unlikely.

Badr points out that the American paper faces fundamental obstacles, the most prominent of which is that it represents unilateral dictates and does not take into account the principle of negotiation that guarantees the interests of both parties, as it is designed to meet Israeli interests only, without taking into account Lebanon’s sovereignty or the requirements of the resistance, which makes it difficult for it to be accepted by either the Lebanese government or the resistance forces.

Badr explains that the paper lacks the foundations of balance required in any serious negotiations, which makes it closer to an attempt to undermine Lebanon's rights and sovereignty.

Israel seeks to buy time through the paper

Regarding the timing of presenting this paper, Badr believes that Israel is seeking to gain time through it, with the aim of avoiding taking any decisive steps during the remaining period of President Joe Biden's term.

Badr describes this step as a futile tactic that aims only to occupy the parties with the possibility of an unserious solution, with Washington and Tel Aviv knowing in advance that Hezbollah will not accept these conditions.

He points out that the other goal of this timing is to calm the Israeli street, which is groaning under the burden of war, by suggesting that there are efforts to find a solution, which may reduce popular pressure and protests.

Badr believes that even if we assume that the arenas between Gaza and Lebanon will be separated, and that Iran and Hezbollah may abandon their direct support for Gaza, Israel, due to its aggressive nature, will not abandon confronting Iran and its arms in the region, stressing that any hostile action against Israel would unite the fronts again, as the security threats in the region are interconnected.

The sector will remain in direct confrontation with war and settlement.

As for the situation in Gaza, Badr believes that the Strip will remain in direct confrontation with war and settlement, unless there is a radical change in the Israeli equation. This change may include the disintegration of the Israeli government coalition or increasing popular rejection of military policies and Israelis taking to the streets to demand a deal.

Badr points out that getting out of the war in Gaza may be difficult without external intervention by global powers, such as the United States, to force Israel to cease fire, or in the event of sudden changes on the ground.

Badr largely rules out the scenario of the resistance surrendering, which makes the prospects for ending the confrontations unclear, whether in Lebanon or Gaza.

Badr confirms that there are no tangible indications that the escalation in either Gaza or Lebanon is nearing an end, which portends more tension and continued escalation in the absence of a real and just settlement.

Obstacles to the success of the paper

Writer and political analyst Samer Anabtawi believes that the American paper presented regarding settling the Lebanese file will not achieve success in light of the current situation, despite the American efforts made to separate the Lebanese front from the Gaza front.

Anbatawi explains that the administration of US President Joe Biden is striving to achieve an agreement that guarantees stability on the Lebanese border before leaving the White House, but the Lebanese resistance will not accept this proposal, which primarily seeks to strengthen Israeli security in southern Lebanon without taking into account the demands or aspirations of the resistance.

Anbatawi points out that the first obstacle to the success of the American paper is that it carries conditions close to surrender, and is not directed towards reaching a fair settlement, which is what the Lebanese resistance rejects.

He stresses that if the Lebanese resistance had been in a position of weakness, there might have been some concessions, but the reality on the ground reflects the opposite, as the resistance continues to inflict heavy losses on Israel, while continuing to stand firm on the ground, and the Israeli failure to penetrate into southern Lebanon reflects the complexity of the situation, and reveals the difficulties facing the occupation.

According to Anbatawi, there is an additional obstacle to the success of this card, which is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu currently rejects any real agreement, and prefers to maneuver and buy time, waiting for the arrival of the new US administration headed by Donald Trump, which may be more compatible with Israel’s goals, including escalation against Iran and opening other fronts in the region.

On the other hand, Anabtawi explains that the Lebanese front was opened to support Gaza as a direct support front after the outbreak of the war on the Strip, in a step that strengthens the steadfastness of the Palestinian resistance. Anabtawi cites the words of the former Secretary-General of Hezbollah, the martyr Hassan Nasrallah, about the Gaza Strip and supporting it, as if it were a recommendation from him to the party on the necessity of providing full support to Gaza.

Anbatawi stresses that Hezbollah has paid a heavy price through sacrifices and losses, and that it will not accept conditions that aim to end its role in supporting the Palestinian resistance.

No real agreement can be reached without a comprehensive settlement.

He explains that no real agreement can be reached unless there is a comprehensive settlement that includes the entire axis of resistance, which makes the American paper far from achieving its goals.

In the same context, Anabtawi criticizes the American partnership and some Western countries in supporting Israel, amid Arab and Islamic silence regarding the "war of extermination" in the Gaza Strip.

Anbatawi points out that there are pressure cards available to stop the aggression, but the absence of Arab, Islamic and international action leads to the continuation of the bombing and destruction.

Anbatawi stresses that the people of Gaza, despite the suffering, continue to stand firm and resist, and the resistance there is inflicting heavy losses on the occupation, considering that Israel will not be able to achieve its goal of ending the Palestinian presence in the Strip.