The boundary between Lebanon and Israel has not been demarcated and both sides dispute territory [GETTY]
Israel has reportedly rejected France’s involvement in a Lebanon-Israel ceasefire overseeing committee, as talks on a deal remain fragile following US special envoy Amos Hochstein’s visit to the region this week.
France, as Lebanon’s closet European ally, has been working with the United States to hatch out a deal to end the fighting between Lebanon’s Shia political and military group Hezbollah, which has been fighting Israeli forces since 8 October 2023.
But Israel is said to be hostile to a French position on an international ceasefire committee over the French government’s growing criticism of how Israel is waging its war in Gaza, according to Israeli media reports.
US top diplomat Hochstein has been holding talks with officials in Beirut and Tel Aviv this week and said that an agreement was “within our grasp” on Tuesday.
Hochstein met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and the Israeli army chief of staff Herzi Halevi to discuss the deal.
But the emerging reports suggest that key differences remain between the two sides, in particular over the establishment of an international committee to monitor the ceasefire’s implementation.
The current committee reportedly includes Lebanon, Israel, UNIFIL and the US, as well as France.
Israeli media reported on Friday that the Israeli government has rejected France’s participation and accused President Emmanuel Macron’s administration of adopting “hostile positions” towards Israel, according to broadcaster Channel 12.
In recent months, Macron has criticised Israel’s war on Gaza and Lebanon and has called for a halt in arms deliveries.
In an interview with French broadcaster France Inter in October, Macron aid that the priority is “a political solution” and that “we stop delivering weapons to fight in Gaza”.
Macron sparked a war of words with Netanyahu after the French president was reported to have told ministers that the Israeli leader should “not forget that his country was created by a decision of the UN,” referring to the resolution adopted in November 1947 by the UN General Assembly.
Speaking to French newspaper Le Figaro later that month, Netanyahu expressed outrage at Macron’s comments describing them as a “historical distortion”.
Key sticking points
On Thursday, Reuters reported that Lebanon is seeking to amend specific details of the draft proposal that would include its right to self-defense, as well as Israel’s. Citing an unnamed Lebanese official, the report said that Lebanon is also pushing to decrease the length of time Israeli forces would withdraw from southern Lebanon, which according to current plans stands at 60 days.
Lebanese officials want Israeli forces to withdraw immediately following the ceasefire to ensure the Lebanese army can be redeployed to the south and accompany residents return to their villages.
Another point Lebanon is hoping to amend is regarding Israel’s withdrawal from “Lebanon borders” as currently written in the text, but Beirut wants it to specify “the Lebanese border” to ensure there is no ambiguity.
Since Lebanon and Israel have never officially demarcated the border line, which became known as the ‘Blue Line’ by the United Nations after the 2006 war, the deal would have to include mechanisms to resolve disputed areas including the Shebaa Farms and the village of Ghajar, both occupied by Israel at the crossing pint between Lebanon, Syria and Israel.
Former defence minister Yoav Gallant – who is now wanted by the International Criminal Court over alleged war crimes in Gaza – on Friday shared a photo of himself and Hochstein meeting during his visit to Tel Aviv.
Gallant, who Netanyahu fired as defence minister earlier this month, said he established “three principles” that Israel will “not give up”.
Israel is demanding that Hezbollah pushes back to north of the Litani River and Beaufort castle, which would be a significant concession of of a large swathe of its political territory.
It also wants to ensure that the Israeli military would have “full freedom of action” to attack Lebanon if “the agreement is violated” and prevent Hezbollah from receiving arms and supplies.
This point has been roundly rejected by the Lebanese government who have said it would be a violation of it sovereignty and the US has reportedly said that the Lebanese army will be responsible for ensuring Hezbollah does not re-arm.
