Lebanon's prime minister: The "framework agreement" with Israel is not a "treaty"

 Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said that the "framework agreement" reached under US auspices is not an agreement or a treaty with Israel, but rather a tripartite framework that sets the course of negotiations towards a final agreement that guarantees a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

In a television interview, Salam explained that the term "framework agreement" may raise "political and legal confusion," stressing that the adopted text does not carry legal consequences but rather falls within political obligations that pave the way for the next rounds of negotiations.

The prime minister pointed out that the main goal of the Lebanese government is to set a clear timetable for the full Israeli withdrawal and to secure the safe and dignified return of the displaced, pointing out that the option of negotiation came as a "necessity" after two devastating wars that left thousands of victims and losses estimated at $20 billion.

Salam: No intention of clash with Hezbollah

Salam stressed that the sovereignty of the state will be extended through the Lebanese army "alone over the entire territory", and that the decision to limit weapons to the state is based on the Taif Agreement and Resolution 1701, denying any intention to enter into  a "clash" with Hizbullah or to submit to any "political blackmail", as he put it.

 Salam spoke of understandings to start a gradual Israeli withdrawal within days from two experimental areas, Zoter al-Gharbia and Zuter al-Sharqiyya, provided that the Lebanese army immediately enters the two areas to extend the authority of the state.

Lebanese sources: An attempt to obstruct the inclusion of the agreement in the House of Representatives

The Lebanese president's clarification on the nature of the framework agreement came as "not a treaty" in an attempt to ease tensions and tensions in Lebanon and prevent its inclusion in the House of Representatives, according to Lebanese sources, especially after  media sources revealed on Wednesday that the Amal movement and Hezbollah are considering a package of constitutional and political options to put the tripartite framework agreement between Lebanon, Israel and the United States for a vote in the House of Representatives and drop it in parliament to lose the political and constitutional cover.

According to the sources, this trend goes beyond the duo of Hezbollah and the Amal movement to expand towards a broader political intersection, where coordination is being made with the former head of the Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt, in parallel with intensive contacts with the head of the Free Patriotic Movement, Gebran Bassil, to persuade him to join this track.

Israel is breaking its promises

The Lebanese president's statements were preceded by the revelation that Tel Aviv had decided to delay the tentative withdrawal from the two Lebanese areas under the pretext of "waiting until a joint monitoring mechanism is reached with Beirut," as  the Israeli  Broadcasting Corporation quoted unnamed sources as saying that discussions within the Israeli army concluded that the initial timetable "is no longer feasible," and that the withdrawal was "postponed until a joint monitoring mechanism is agreed between the Lebanese and Israeli armies" that will reportedly oversee the implementation of the ceasefire. in the Confidential Security Annex to the Agreement.

According to these sources, there are currently no specific timetables, and that the withdrawal "will take place, but it must be done properly," noting that Tel Aviv will not withdraw its forces until clear criteria are set to ensure that the Lebanese army moves against Hezbollah in a "concrete and immediate manner."

Framework Agreement No Withdrawal Timetable

Beirut and Tel Aviv, under the auspices of the United States, signed on Friday evening, June 24, a "framework agreement" that stipulates a "sequential" Israeli withdrawal from all of the occupied Lebanese territory, starting with two unnamed test zones.

The agreement did not set a timetable for the withdrawal, and linked it to the Lebanese army's assumption of full security responsibility in the areas from which the withdrawal is being made, and the disarmament of armed groups, with particular reference to Hezbollah.

While Lebanese officials saw the agreement as a "first step" on the road to restoring the state's sovereignty over its entire territory, Hezbollah considered it "non-existent" and "humiliating," and considered linking the withdrawal to its disarmament "crossing red lines."

The Amal Movement and Lebanese forces considered the agreement unenforceable, demanding that the Lebanese government disclose all secret annexes associated with the agreement, stressing that the issue of limiting weapons to the hands of the state is an internal Lebanese affair and should not be included in any external negotiations, especially with the "Israeli enemy."