The cabinet approved a cease-fire agreement in Lebanon that requires the IDF should to withdraw within 60 days, but the Americans say that the process may be shorter and, in fact, the withdrawal from southern Lebanon may begin within the next day.
In the day before the cease-fire went into effect, the IDF launched non-stop attacks in Daheih and in central Beirut and other areas in Lebanon, including on the Syrian border. Hezbollah, for its part, launched non-stop volleys to the north, and also fired into the Hadera area. But at 4:00 a.m., the shooting stopped and the cease-fire began, which, unlike the one in Gaza during the hostage deal, is supposed to be permanent, not temporary.
Residents of southern Lebanon return to villages after cease-fire goes into effect
The IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon will be gradual and may begin as early as Wednesday under heavy air cover. It will also include the removal of dozens of Israeli flags that IDF soldiers have placed in Lebanese army posts and positions they have occupied in Lebanese territory.
A senior U.S. official said that during this two-month period the "Lebanese army forces will begin deploying in the south. This is a process that cannot happen overnight or within days. This is intended to prevent the situation from creating a vacuum. We are not saying that at the end of the 60 days the IDF will withdraw, but much before. This will be a gradual withdrawal in several areas where the IDF is present. The Israelis will withdraw completely no later than 60 days, perhaps as early as the 50th day."
3 View gallery
Rocket fire on Beirut in the hours before cease-fire took effect
(Photo: Fadel Itani/ AFP)
The official added that, "unlike previous agreements, especially in 2006, this time there is an agreed-upon map. The Lebanese army will receive permission from the Lebanese government to deploy and fulfill its mission and guarantee that they will deploy in the south and make sure that Hezbollah moves to the north, and that all its heavy weapons are removed. They will patrol the area and guarantee that if any infrastructure or weapons remain they will be removed and it will not be possible to rebuild such infrastructure in this area."
The enforcement mechanism will be upgraded, he said. "The U.S. and France will join an existing mechanism that was created shortly after the Second Lebanon War and includes UNIFIL, Israel and Lebanon. The U.S. will head that mechanism, and will receive complaints from both sides for any possible violation." We will work with the Lebanese Army to make sure every violation is addressed. There will be no American soldiers in the area, but there will be military assistance to the Lebanese army in cooperation with the French army."
He noted that "there is another element called the Joint Military Commission, - which includes the armies of other countries that will provide equipment, training and financial resources to the Lebanese army and the Lebanese security services. Unlike in the Second Lebanon War, here we are obliged to stay on the ground, see what is happening and follow Hezbollah or other terrorist organizations."
The same senior American emphasized the importance of rebuilding Lebanon. "From the lessons of the past, Hezbollah was the only one that did reconstruction work in southern Lebanon. This time it is in the interest of all of us to support economic growth and rebuild Lebanon. Hezbollah is very weak militarily and this is the opportunity for Lebanon to exercise sovereignty over its territory, elect a president and attract foreign investors so that it can return to economic normality and independence."
"Israel had great achievements on the battlefield, but it is impossible to achieve long-term security only on the battlefield," he clarified. "This requires a political solution that is supported by the military achievements. Hezbollah did not ask permission from the people of Lebanon when it decided to join the Hamas attacks. This is a war that most Lebanese did not want, and it is important that they be able to return home safely."
He referred to the speech of U.S. President Joe Biden, saying that the president "made it clear that if there is an immediate threat to Israel, then Israel - like any country in a similar situation - will have to deal with it. If we use the tools we have in Lebanon and don't take our eyes off the ground this will not be necessary. We are confident that if Israeli action is necessary it will not happen soon and, in any case, it will be rare.
3 View gallery
U.S. President Joe Biden announces the cease-fire deal in Lebanon from the White House
(Photo: The White House)
The same senior official expressed hope that the agreement in Lebanon will lead to an agreement in Gaza as well. "What happened today has the potential to be a game-changer in Gaza. If there is anything that can put pressure on Hamas, on people who do not really care about the lives of their people and even their own lives - it is the reality, in which they see that Hezbollah has decided to abandon them. This can lead to a change in the reality on the ground."
He emphasized that President-elect Donald Trump's people were informed about the contacts: "President Biden thinks that normalization is the ultimate change in the Middle East. It can change the whole picture. A lot of work has been done, let's see if we can do anything else in the time that remains. Everything that is done will not be done without Trump's people, who know it is in the best interest of the U.S. and the Middle East."
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
In response to the question of whether Iran was involved in the talks, the official replied: "I did not negotiate with Iran, and it should not influence what happens in Lebanon. Only the people of Lebanon should make decisions through the speaker of the Parliament, the prime minister, and if, God willing, he is elected, then through the president."
Addressing the Israeli claim that the United States threatened not veto future resolutions in the Security Council if there was no agreement, the senior American official said: "No. This point did not come up. Not only did we not threaten, the issue never came up at all."