TEHRAN – Recent attempts by the US to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon have triggered a wave of anger and rejection in Beirut, with Lebanese officials accusing Washington of proposing a "surrender" rather than a genuine peace agreement.

The US plan, presented by senior envoy Amos Hochstein, seeks to amend UN Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war, by expanding the mandate of international forces and imposing stricter controls on Lebanon's sovereignty.

A proposal seen as a "surrender"

According to Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, citing diplomatic sources, Hochstein arrived in Beirut with a pre-determined script, informed of Israel's refusal to accept any agreement that didn't meet its demands. The proposed amendments to Resolution 1701, which Hochstein reportedly presented as a U.S. vision for peace, have been met with widespread condemnation in Lebanon.
The proposal seeks to expand the geographic scope of international force operations to include areas north of the Litani River, granting them the authority to conduct "surprise patrols" and inspections of homes, vehicles, and sites suspected of holding weapons. It also calls for increased deployment of Lebanese army forces in the region, the establishment of inspection teams at Lebanese airports, and the installation of watchtowers across the country.

Lebanon's firm rejection

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri firmly rejected any amendments to Resolution 1701, arguing that the U.S. should instead focus on ensuring Israel's adherence to the existing resolution. Berri stated that any attempt to amend the resolution would only hinder its implementation and that no Lebanese official would accept the U.S. offer.
The Lebanese government, in agreement with Berri, opposes any discussion about the resistance's weapons outside the scope of Resolution 1701. They maintain that the geographical boundaries of the agreement should not be expanded, and the presence of international forces along the Syrian border is unacceptable.

The shadow of Israeli demands

The proposed amendments to Resolution 1701 are seen as a reflection of Israeli demands for a broader control over Lebanese territory. This sentiment is further reinforced by reports that Israel's conditions for a ceasefire include continued ground operations in south Lebanon and unrestricted access to Lebanese airspace. These demands are seen as a violation of Lebanon's sovereignty and a blatant disregard for UN resolutions.

The US role in the crisis

The U.S. has historically been a key player in the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. While the U.S. has claimed neutrality in the recent escalation, its proposal to amend Resolution 1701 in favour of Israel is seen as a clear sign of its biased stance.

Hezbollah's stance and the larger conflict

Hezbollah has consistently rejected Western attempts to separate the Lebanese front from the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Hezbollah insists on a ceasefire in Gaza before any discussion on Resolution 1701 or the border situation.

Looking ahead: A bleak outlook

The U.S. proposal for a ceasefire has only exacerbated the tension between Lebanon and Israel, further undermining the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Washington’s clear bias towards Israel and its willingness to sacrifice Lebanese sovereignty in pursuit of a "ceasefire" is seen as a major obstacle to peace. The future of the conflict, in the face of the U.S. unwavering support for Israeli demands, remains uncertain.