Written by Nasser Kandil,
Some Lebanese may want to interpret every movement at the international and regional level related to Lebanon for Lebanese reasons, some say that there is an international regional decision to protect the stability in Lebanon and some deny that. If there is such of a decision then it is a decision to protect the stability under the influence of the Arabs who support the American policies and who do not feel embarrassed to boast of the Israeli ones, and if there is not, then it is one of the repercussions of the “dilemma” in which Hezbollah put Lebanon due to its involvement in region’s wars especially the war in Syria. Those cannot see any positive point that Lebanon obtained from the wars which Hezbollah launched or participated in and led to the defeat of ISIS. Lebanon benefited surely from ISIS’s defeat, and its defeat has confused the American project and the Israeli aggression, and has its influence on Lebanon through the decrease of the level of the exposure to risks.
Some find it difficult to recognize that the Israeli readiness to negotiate on the sea borders in search for a compromise would have been possible without the weapons of the resistance and its announced readiness to destroy the Israeli oil and gas platforms; they want to link the staying of the US Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield in Lebanon with the prevention of the instability without granting the resistance and its weapons any role of imposing anxiety on the American and the Israeli sides. Those also escape from linking all the American interest in Lebanon with the presence of the resistance and the degree of concern which causes to the entity of the occupation, but they remember this linkage immediately when there is a talk about banking sanctions to express their anger due to the presence of the resistance weapons and their effect on Lebanon and the Lebanese.
The Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri revealed the US proposal to negotiate indirectly on demarcating the land and sea borders with Lebanon including Shebaa Farms. This proposal comes in conjunction with the American seeking to link the settlement in the South of Syria with redeploying the (UNDOF) on the disengagement line between Syria and the occupation enemy in Golan after Israel has done its best to affect the stability on the Syrian front, and tried to build a security belt handled by Al Nusra front, and after it linked between its raids in Syria and the weapons of the resistance in Lebanon, it did not hide its bets on the availability of the opportunities of a comprehensive war on the resistance depending on its bet on a war of attrition which is supposed to be represented by the war in Syria on the resistance and its weapons. It is certain that if the Israeli bet was achieved and the resistance was under greater pressures because of the war on Syria, the US and the Israeli postponement would take place in the demarcation of the sea borders and putting the borders in Shebaa Farms under comprehensive solutions.
The seeking to fortify the front borders of the occupation entity and to end the unresolved files which may turn into a justification or a reason of tension and thus escalation, which Washington and Tel Aviv find it a source of concern from a confrontation that they do not want to wage and to take the risk of its consequences alone explains the US proposal to end the issue of Shebaa Farms. This seeking results from the ongoing transformations on the Syrian borders and the new balances imposed by the victories of the Syrian Arab Army and the victories of the resistance in addition to the undeniable progress of the Iranian role. Therefore, Lebanon is owed the resistance regarding this transformation in the American and Israeli positions. This requires considering this new proposal a beginning to impose equations of negotiation from the position of force. The first obligations of this negotiation is the exit from the illusions and the dreams of some people who wanted to make use of such of these proposals to put the weapons of the resistance under the negotiation in order to grant Washington and Tel Aviv gains that do not aspire to achieve them.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,