U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein concluded his visit to Beirut and left, with plans to return after gauging the Israeli perspective on Lebanon's position, which he received orally rather than in writing. Formally, the oral response reflects weakness in the Lebanese stance, as it does not bind any parties, including Lebanon itself, and showcases the fragmentation that has weakened Lebanon's position in border demarcation negotiations. This is merely a continuation of the chaos adopted by the relevant authorities, particularly President Michel Aoun and his team, since they entered the talks and undermined the framework agreement through populism and bidding wars.
Substantively, the Lebanese position relied on adopting line 23 as the border line and considering line 29 merely as a negotiating line, in addition to the entire Qana field, in exchange for relinquishing the Karish field. This indicates that the previous period, during which Lebanon demanded line 29 and amended the decree according to this request, was a waste of time. It is certainly evident that everything that happened was premeditated and linked to the policies of the ruling authority represented by the Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah, extending its influence beyond borders to Iran.
Returning to line 23 means Lebanon is reverting to the negotiation point or the framework agreement announced by President Nabih Berri over a year ago. Had Lebanon adhered to this since that time, it could have accelerated work on the file, even reaching advanced stages of extraction. Lebanon needs to accomplish this file quickly, as it is considered the only fundamental solution to bring significant and sustainable dollars into the internal economy to emerge from the financial crisis.
It is important to recall the position of Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt, who was the only one to call for a return to the framework agreement, as it is the only reference, while populism and bidding characterized recent days. In this context, lawyer and oil and gas law specialist, and member of the Progressive Socialist Party’s leadership council, Lama Hreiz, stated that "the Lebanese position heard by Hochstein is to adopt line 23 along with the Qana field, and condition Israel to stop drilling operations until the borders are demarcated. However, the position was merely a non-binding oral offer, and the U.S. envoy announced he would convey the message to the Israeli side."
In an interview with "Al-Anbaa" electronic newspaper, Hreiz noted that "the Lebanese position effectively means a return to the framework agreement, and it is expected that the Israelis will accept it. Thus, what happened previously reflects nothing but empty bidding of no real benefit on paper." Hreiz reminded that "the Progressive Socialist Party called for commitment to the framework agreement two years ago, but that did not happen, resulting in a waste of time. After two years, they returned to the original proposal." She emphasized that "Lebanon must move beyond the game of lines and requests for studies and seismic surveys of the region, to negotiate based on scientific data and facts that benefit Lebanon, rather than the randomness that is occurring today."
Hreiz concluded her remarks by indicating that "solving the current impasse does not mean completing the file, as more problems will arise, particularly in the extraction phase, where there may be shared deposits between us and the Israeli enemy. What will Lebanon do then? The officials have not discussed this matter with Hochstein."
On another note, Lebanon is approaching mandatory parliamentary consultations to designate a new prime minister, but so far, the picture remains unclear and unresolved. The Free Patriotic Movement is still negotiating with Prime Minister Najib Mikati and is monopolizing the discussion in response to Mikati’s opposition to some proposals from the Minister of Energy affiliated with the movement, Walid Fayad, and is demanding the Ministry of Energy and shares and names. Meanwhile, the reformist bloc has not finalized its choice yet, nor have independent MPs or sovereign parties.
In this context, MP Wadih Sadek pointed out that "consultations are ongoing to agree on a unified name within the bloc that includes other MPs, and so far, there is no agreement on a name, but rather on qualifications, which are independence and non-political affiliation, as well as having a required political and economic program for the coming phase in light of the many challenges."
In an interview with "Al-Anbaa" electronic newspaper, Sadek mentioned that the name he favors personally is Ambassador Nawaf Salam, "but this is a personal opinion and does not bind anyone, and there is still no agreement on him, yet in my view, he is the right man for this phase, as he is independent with no previous political affiliations and is capable of working on judicial matters."
Sadek rejected national unity governments, considering them one of the main reasons for the country's current situation, demanding a government of genuinely independent specialists, not an appearance like previous occasions, or a single-color government instead of consensus governments. Regarding the participation of the "Change Forces" in the government, Sadek confirmed their personal non-participation, as they are in favor of separating the parliamentary and ministerial roles, but they may have a say in proposing names and presenting "qualified names capable of shouldering their responsibilities."
For his part, MP Said Asmar disclosed that "the Lebanese Forces are in a phase of building bridges and communicating with all sovereign and reformist parties diligently to arrive at a unified position regarding the naming of a prime minister, to avoid repeating the experience of electing the deputy speaker of parliament."
In an interview with "Al-Anbaa" electronic newspaper, Asmar emphasized the need to "learn from what happened then and to agree on a singular position, as the only way to achieve the aspirations of the Lebanese is through consensus. Bickering and bidding will yield no results."
