The meetings of Lebanon and Israel in Florida end without a breakthrough or a new date

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

An American source revealed to Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath, on Thursday, that the military meetings between Lebanon and Israel, hosted by the US Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida, on October 20 and 21, without achieving any breakthrough or setting a date for a new round, in light of the continuing disagreements regarding the implementation of the framework agreement, the disarmament of Hezbollah, the deployment of the Lebanese army, and the Israeli withdrawal.

According to the source, the most prominent points of disagreement were the lack of agreement on the countries that will participate in the mechanism for monitoring the implementation of security arrangements and verifying the removal of weapons and military installations belonging to Hezbollah.

Israel also insists on being a party to monitoring operations, while Lebanon refuses to grant it any direct powers to monitor the movements of the Lebanese army or interfere in its decisions, and adheres to an independent international mechanism. On the other hand, the Lebanese Army shows its readiness to cooperate with any country agreed to participate in the verification operations.

The information indicates that the American side presented a vision for forming an international military committee, and the names of Britain, Italy, Germany, and Jordan were discussed, along with information about Israeli objections to the participation of Turkey and Pakistan. However, the meetings ended without agreeing on the participating countries or the committee’s powers, including the right to enter military sites and depots, and whether the monitoring would also include Israeli withdrawal and the cessation of military operations.

The first day witnessed a review of the reasons for the failure of the experiment in the experimental areas in southern Lebanon, while the Israeli side focused on what it described as the failure of the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah and dismantle its military infrastructure in the border areas.

According to the sources, the Israeli skepticism went beyond the army’s performance and included the ability of the Lebanese government in general to implement its security obligations and impose state authority, with accusations being directed at the army of negligence in dealing with Hezbollah’s activity, accusations that the Lebanese side rejects.

On the other hand, the Lebanese side stressed that the continuation of Israeli attacks and incursions and demolition and bulldozing operations impede the deployment of the army and the completion of its security missions.

The meetings did not reach an agreement on expanding the first experimental area, which includes Faron, Srifa, and Zawtar al-Gharbiya, or moving to a new area.

Israel is committed to removing military threats and verifying the implementation of security measures before any additional withdrawal, while Lebanon demands that Israeli operations stop and a timetable be set for withdrawal, allowing the army to extend its control over the areas in question.

The Lebanese demands also included facilitating the return of residents to border villages, stopping the demolition of homes and leveling lands, allowing farmers to access their lands, and addressing the issue of Lebanese prisoners.

No announced progress was achieved on these demands or any mutual steps for withdrawal and deployment were identified.

Information indicates the continuation of American coordination channels with both sides, despite Lebanon’s refusal to establish an operations room or direct military coordination channel with Israel.

Separate American consultations were also held with the Lebanese and Israeli delegations on Thursday, to review the results of the meetings and the differences that prevented reaching an understanding.

Despite the lack of progress, some assessments do not consider that the military track has been closed, and Washington may even work to amend the proposals related to the verification committee and resubmit them at a later stage.

Thus, the Tampa meetings ended without an agreement on the observer states or their powers, and without expanding the experimental areas or setting an Israeli withdrawal schedule or a date for a new round.

This outcome reveals that the main disagreement is no longer just technical, but rather relates to the extent of Israel’s confidence in the ability of the Lebanese government and the army to implement the framework agreement, and the limits of the role that international parties can play in monitoring implementation, while Washington is trying to keep the military track open despite the continued divergence between the Lebanese and Israeli positions.