The World – Lebanon
After America and the Israeli occupation entity were surprised by the Lebanese proposal in the indirect border demarcation negotiations in Naqoura, the American decision, in accordance with the “Israeli” position, was clear and firm to stop negotiations and to deal with the “sudden” situation, thus returning the situation to a point where “Israel” finds its interest. To start from them in the negotiation process.
Retired Brigadier General Dr. Amin Hoteit said, “As for the cause of the” Israeli “- American surprise, it was represented in two matters … the first is related to the reference documents for negotiations, and the second is related to the disputed area between Lebanon and the Zionist entity that practices its occupation of Palestine.
Regarding the first topic, which is the reference documents, Brigadier General Hoteit says, “Israel” has shown that it has accepted to enter the indirect negotiation process in accordance with the conditions included in the so-called framework agreement to define the negotiation procedures, and that this agreement did not stipulate an agreement to demarcate Lebanon’s land borders with Palestine, any agreement by Newcomb did not take into account the armistice agreement that Israel canceled on June 29, 1967 and unilaterally, nor did he mention the 1982 Law of the Sea Agreement, which Israel refrained from joining. The framework agreement confined itself to taking only the April 1996 Understanding and Resolution 1701/2006 as exclusive reference documents for the negotiations. It is an “Israeli” position that undermines fixed Lebanese rights within the borders that, unfortunately, overthrown by the United States, and Lebanon did not comment on the American behavior at the time. Lebanon was silent when David Hale confirmed, after the announcement of this framework agreement, that Lebanon has no land borders with “Israel”, disguising that or Completely omitting the Pauli Newcomb agreement and the armistice agreement that it affirms. This denial of the American and Israeli denial of the Lebanese land borders is also deduced from Trump’s map that he attached to his vision for peace, as he drew on it the borders between Lebanon and occupied Palestine with a dashed line, which means by the cartographic term for lines. It is a temporary line that needs a position or a decision to make it final.
On the other hand, Brigadier General Hoteit continues, the Lebanese delegation has shown, under the direct supervision of the President of the Republic, its adherence to the three documents that are considered effective legal weapons in order to obtain its rights, and any waiver of any of them constitutes a prelude and a prelude to compromising and forfeiting its rights to land, sea and wealth.
As for the second issue, which is related to the disputed area, which will be the subject of negotiation to settle its ownership. Here we find that “Israel” adheres to the draft agreement between Lebanon and Cyprus, in which a mistake was made by adopting point number one (and this mistake is the root of the disagreement), as it also proceeds in the limit. Al-Aqsa «due to its concession from Decree 6433 that Lebanon sent in the year 2011 to the United Nations, in which it defined the boundary of the southern Lebanese economic zone and limited it between the 23 points in the sea and Ras al-Naqura as stipulated in the« Bolih Newcomb »agreement on land. However, Lebanon carried its delegation to Naqoura, a map prepared according to a modern and advanced interpretation of the law of the sea that was linked to the “Bolih Newcomb” agreement and the reality of the Lebanese coast line and the islands corresponding to it. In conclusion, the areas proposed for negotiation are according to the positions of the parties in one of two positions, the “Israeli” position adheres to the negotiation On the area of the 860 km2 that arises from an exclusive disagreement over which of the two points is taken 1 or 23, and believes that the negotiation aims to reach a third point between them? Whereas the Lebanese position stems from its perception of Lebanon’s right with an area of 2,290 square kilometers, as is shown by its last map, which contradicts the map attached to Decree 6433 and with what came in the framework agreement?
It remains for us to point out the American position that adheres to the framework agreement, which means not adopting the Lebanese reference documents, and adheres to Decree 6433 and its map, which means that negotiations are limited to 860 km2, and thus it identifies with the declared Israeli position.
In light of this impasse, which appears to be double and not as some limit it to the disputed area, we see that proceeding with negotiations according to what Israel wants, and America is pressuring and claiming that it is actions or commitment to the framework agreement, as this would undermine Lebanon’s rights in the economic zone. More dangerous than that and here is the bottom line, which perpetuates a dangerous Lebanese concession on Lebanon’s established right to its international land borders and leads to the Lebanese recognition of the fall of the 1949 Armistice Agreement, in addition to that it leads to depriving Lebanon of the rights and gains granted to it by the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, and all of this is considered a concession or exaggeration With Lebanese national rights, no person, regardless of his position in the state, has the power to dispose of them. Hoteit believes that getting out of the existing impasse should be by returning to the principles and correcting previous mistakes without correcting mistakes that also require correction and without the correction causing an impasse that complicates matters And difficult to get out. Therefore, we believe that Lebanon should resort to the following steps:
The first step: directing a book to the American mediator and to the United Nations that includes the Lebanese position on the three reference documents and categorically rejects any departure from it, or from it or exceeding it, namely: the Pauli Newcomb agreement 1923, the armistice agreement 1949 Law of the Sea 1982, which is a necessary and urgent book now so as not to He explains the Lebanese position as having given up on it, and his abdication constitutes a precedent on which to build in the future. Here, it is necessary to recall our previous positions rejecting the phrase “demarcation of land borders” because we have been and still consider that such a statement or request is negligent even as a betrayal of national rights. The joint American – Israeli position has shown that there is a decision to drop these borders and return to a new demarcation that violates Lebanon’s rights to its land.
The second step: Adoption of a corrective decree with the obligating explanatory reasons amending Decree 6433/2011 which itself reserves the right of Lebanon to amend in the event of new data appearing. The new decree is deposited by the United Nations after it is signed in addition to the presidents of the republic and the government from the ministers of defense, money and works, and it can be issued. It has also become a well-established custom through exceptional approvals or by calling for an exceptional cabinet of the resigned government. Negotiations can also be suspended and the decree’s issuance delayed until a new government is formed to undertake the approval of the decree. Brigadier General Hoteit concludes that these legal and administrative procedures are more important than them, which is the unity of the Lebanese position, adherence to national rights, support for the official position, preventing any cracks in it, avoiding intransigence and adhering to mistakes or being preoccupied with holding responsibilities for mistakes. The issue is not who is wrong and who is wrong now. Rather, the issue is a matter of national rights and wealth that must be preserved and preserved.