Listen to the article
The humanitarian truce launched on Friday 24 as part of a deal that stipulated the release of 50 hostages held by Hamas in exchange for the liberation of 150 Palestinian prisoners of war at a ratio of one to three throughout the four-day renewable truce is drawing to an end.
Before the truce entered into force, a list released by the Israeli Ministry of Justice revealed the identities of 300 Palestinian detainees currently incarcerated in Israeli prisons. This indicates that the exchange agreement for prisoners of war may extend beyond the current 150 Palestinians. Also, the number of individuals held by the Hamas movement is expected to be north of 200, despite the liberation of some of them.
Meanwhile, international and regional communications are intensifying to consolidate the truce, avert its collapse and prevent the resurgence of hostilities, a goal the Israeli army is pursuing in order to secure a victory, as confirmed by a military expert.
Opinions among politicians and experts varied on the truce viability and whether it would be extended to encompass humanitarian truces to complete the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and Israeli military captives held by the Palestinians. This is attributed to the lack of details concerning the discreet negotiations that took place in Qatar, involving representatives from the US, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Palestine.
Despite this, a Western official asserted that “the truce will transition into truces,” at a time when an Arab diplomat expressed concern that each truce might be followed by a bloody military round dictated by the imperatives of the settlement.
What Lies Ahead After Gaza?
This is the pivotal question currently being discussed in international forums. However, decision-making countries are actively working towards a lasting solution centered on the establishment of an independent Palestinian State within a broader settlement. Nonetheless, a representative from the Western diplomatic community believes the forthcoming course of action is expected to be time-consuming owing to various conditions and cross-conditions, the complexity of achieving a settlement agreement and mechanism and the determination of the Palestinian participants at the negotiation table, among other pertinent details.
From a diplomatic-military perspective, the intended goal of the October 7 war has not been fulfilled, which is why moving to truces and then to a ceasefire would be absurd, as what is needed is a political consensus on a regional deal between the US and Iran, with the collaboration of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Israel and Turkey.
What does Iran, which fosters al-Moumana’a (obstructionist) factions, want in return for achieving a settlement agreement?
Will the Arab countries tolerate Iran’s persisting influence over the Palestinian cause as it actively “fights” for it and raises the slogan of terminating the State of Israel and establishing a Palestinian State on its territory, with Jerusalem as its capital?
Is Iran willing to relinquish its “allies” in the region, which encompass the countries of the obstructionist axis, including Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, and undertake a political and military withdrawal from the region without incurring any expenses or reaping any benefits? This is why, as stated by a diplomatic source, “we need to await the outcomes of the US-Iranian deal.”
US President Joe Biden elucidated the post-humanitarian truce scenario by pledging the “renewal of the two-state solution to foster peace between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Hence, as per diplomatic circles, there are still unanswered questions, notably regarding the position of the Palestinian State: What lies ahead for the settlers in the West Bank? What lies ahead for Gaza? What would be the appropriate mechanism for reaching a solution?
Would it be possible to reconsider the project of federalism and the internationalization of Jerusalem, establishing a Holy Land State akin to the Vatican, an independent and open State under international sponsorship because this will facilitate the solution of establishing the Palestinian State?
This is regarding the Gaza war and the formation of the Palestinian State, since nothing is definitively settled or firmly established at the moment.
As for Lebanon, it is currently in the intensive care unit, in a “weighty” state of anticipating its fate and future, according to opposition circles. The Islamic Resistance, accompanied by al-Moumana’a factions in the south, is prepared to pull the trigger whenever necessary.
Simultaneously with the ongoing negotiations to extend the initial four-day truce into new truces, Western and Arab nations are exerting pressure to prevent the activation of the southern front and the weakening of its ties with the Gaza front. This is attributed to Lebanon’s inability to sustain a solo war amidst the silence of other steadfast and confrontational fronts, notably Iraq and Syria.
In this context, Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Bogdanov reached out to Lebanese officials, emphasizing the prolonged nature of the crisis and the need for concerted efforts to prevent Hezbollah’s involvement in the war given Lebanon’s delicate situation. He emphasized the utmost importance of Russia exerting pressure on both Iran and Israel, despite the prevailing tensions, to avert a war in Lebanon.
Hence, as per diplomatic circles, French envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian has been designated by the Quintet meeting for discussions in Lebanon with counterparts from Egypt and Qatar to “encourage Lebanese officials to assume their responsibilities and elect a president, as it is inexcusable for the State to remain without a head in such circumstances, particularly when exploring a new Middle East and defining the roles of the States.”
This is in addition to the international apprehension that the void may extend beyond the presidency to other diverse institutions such as the Central Bank of Lebanon and ultimately, the army…
Genuine apprehensions will be looming over Lebanon’s destiny and future if the Lebanese fail to expeditiously proceed with the election of a president.
According to certain observers, it appears that Hezbollah is not rushing to take a definitive stance until the ongoing negotiations in Qatar and their outcomes in the region are clarified, to determine the fate of Gaza, that of the Palestinian State and its potential configuration.
Will the representatives of the Quintet be able to persuade local powers of the urgency to elect a president, or will the Lebanese people have to keep on waiting for outcomes? The new Lebanon is expected to emerge from a settlement that will put an end to the region’s wars as a prelude to an international conference that imposes a solution, with a prior meeting of the Security Council to make appropriate decisions.
