Berri Emphasises the Difference Between Lebanon and the Occupying Entity Lies in Their Genuine Commitment to Resolution 1701 / The Resistance Lures Occupation Tanks and Infantry Into Aita’s Outskirts, Inflicts Heavy Losses, Forcing Their Retreat

 October 22, 2024

The political editor wrote

Two major rounds – one political and one on the battlefield – unfolded in Lebanon, between its capital and the south. In Beirut, the diplomatic negotiations took place between the head of the resistance’s diplomacy, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, and the head of U.S.-Israeli diplomacy, Amos Hochstein. Meanwhile, the south witnessed open confrontations, most notably on the Aita al-Shaab front, where the resistance lured the occupation’s army into the outskirts of the town. The occupation advanced with its tanks and infantry to the front-line houses, only to be met by the resistance, which inflicted heavy losses, forcing them to retreat.

The occupation’s frenzied nighttime attack on the southern suburbs reflected its frustration with Lebanon’s confident and powerful responses to Hochstein’s proposals, which were softened versions of Israel’s demands. These aimed to establish a negotiating foothold under the flexible umbrella of Resolution 1701, which could be altered implicitly through terms such as “implementation mechanisms”, “mutual guarantees,” and “interpretations.” However, Speaker Berri presented Hochstein with a fact-based breakdown, explaining that the occupying entity has not abided by Resolution 1701. He pointed out that Israel does not want the resolution to be the foundation for regulating the situation along the border, therefore discussion that assumes equal commitment to the resolution between Lebanon and the entity is fundamentally misguided.

Berri explained how the occupation’s retention of the Lebanese part of the village of Ghajar – seized in 2006 – remains unresolved, despite the resolution explicitly calling for a withdrawal. Furthermore, the Shebaa Farms remain under occupation, even though the resolution tasked the UN Secretary-General with resolving the dispute, which former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon addressed and Lebanon accepted, yet Israel rejected and obstructed any solutions. This, along with thousands of air and sea violations, has led Lebanon to insist on a flexible interpretation of the resolution to avoid undermining the resistance – the country’s sole source of strength in confronting Israel. Without the resistance, Israel would have done far more damage. Despite this, the resistance has respected the agreement to refrain from military displays south of the Litani River, leaving security there in the hands of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL.

Berri argued that any assessment of the current situation should start with the premise of what might have happened had Israel fully implemented the resolution, leading to a permanent ceasefire. Lebanon could have made further commitments based on this, preventing the current escalation.

In conclusion, Berri requested that Hochstein secure a clear commitment from Israel to adopt Resolution 1701 as the basis for regulating the situation across the border, without additions or deletions. Only then can discussions move toward a ceasefire in accordance with the joint French-American statement, and all necessary measures to ensure implementation can be addressed.