US Urges Lebanon: Embrace Normalization with Israel for Lasting Peace

SOUTH LEBANON — In a recent statement, Morgan Ortagus, the deputy presidential special envoy to the Middle East, emphasized the importance of pursuing a “peace” agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv. This remark follows her earlier assertion that Hezbollah should not hold any governmental role. In an exclusive interview with the Lebanese Al-Jadeed TV channel, Ortagus outlined the objectives of ongoing diplomatic discussions.

Ortagus indicated that the current diplomatic efforts aim to establish negotiations involving “three diplomatic working groups.” The primary focus of these negotiations includes:

• Release of Lebanese Prisoners: Addressing the plight of Lebanese individuals detained by Israeli forces.
• Determining Occupied Sites: Clarifying the status of territories currently under Israeli occupation.
• Demarcating Land Borders: Establishing clear boundaries between Lebanon and Israel.

She noted that these pressing issues can be managed without the need for extensive diplomatic groups, as they could be effectively overseen by the Supervisory Committee for the Implementation of Resolution 1701.

In her remarks regarding the Lebanese prisoners taken by Israeli forces, Ortagus stated that there is little point in negotiations since Lebanon does not hold any Israeli prisoners to bargain with. This highlights a complex dynamic in the ongoing discussions.

Moreover, Steve Witkoff, a special envoy for Donald Trump, previously highlighted the urgency from Washington to initiate “peace” negotiations with Lebanon and Syria. Witkoff expressed optimism about the possibility of Saudi Arabia joining the so-called “Abraham Accords,” indicating a broader regional interest in peace agreements.

Witkoff asserted that political changes in the region could influence Lebanon significantly. This aligns with the broader context of U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Middle East.

Before Lebanon’s presidential election and amidst U.S.-led Israeli military activities against the country in September and November, the American embassy in Beirut reportedly questioned various candidates about their positions on normalizing relations with Israel and the status of Hezbollah’s armament.

Lisa Johnson, the U.S. ambassador to Beirut, communicated to key Lebanese figures the necessity of preparing for a comprehensive and lasting resolution with Tel Aviv. This underscores the American commitment to reshaping Lebanon’s political landscape.

In her frequent assertions, Johnson claimed that Hezbollah had experienced significant military and political setbacks, rendering it incapable of managing its own affairs effectively. Such statements reflect the U.S. perspective on the power dynamics within Lebanon.

Washington appears confident that only a few independent Lebanese officials would oppose American directives, which suggests a determined effort by the White House to advance its agenda in the region.

Furthermore, it is evident that Washington has restricted the mandate of the UN’s five-member committee tasked with monitoring Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty. This committee has consistently maintained that Israeli actions are justified as responses to alleged violations by Hezbollah, which has not disclosed its military capabilities or the locations of its installations.

The apparent silence from Lebanese authorities has facilitated Washington’s swift progression toward establishing “diplomatic” working groups, which raises concerns about the implications for Lebanese sovereignty.

These proposed “diplomatic” working groups risk contravening the Lebanese constitution, which prohibits any direct engagement between Lebanese diplomats and representatives of the Israeli state. This legal barrier highlights the contentious nature of the ongoing discussions.

Lebanese leaders currently in power are urged to reflect on the negative consequences of normalization witnessed in Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. The lessons learned from these past experiences, as well as the ongoing situation in neighboring Syria, should inform their decisions moving forward.

As Lebanon navigates these complex diplomatic waters, the implications of any agreement with Israel will undoubtedly resonate throughout the region, influencing both local and international relations.