Israel Sprays South Lebanon With Poison

The Israeli army’s spraying of chemical substances over vast agricultural areas in southern Lebanon and Syria is deeply alarming. The deliberate targeting of civilian farmland violates international humanitarian law, particularly the prohibition on attacking or destroying objects indispensable to civilian survival. Large-scale destruction of private property without specific military necessity amounts to a war crime and undermines food security and basic livelihoods in the affected areas.

On the morning of Sunday, 1 February 2026, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) received notice from the Israeli army of planned aerial activity near the Blue Line and was asked to remain inside shelters. The alert disrupted the mission, leading to the cancellation of more than 10 field activities and the suspension of routine patrols along one-third of the line for over nine hours.

During the period in which international forces were forced to remain inactive, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor documented Israeli aircraft spraying chemical substances over extensive agricultural areas, particularly in the town of Ayta ash-Shaab and its vicinity in southern Lebanon. This raises the risk of consequences beyond immediate crop damage, posing a serious threat to the rights to health and a safe environment through potential long-term contamination of soil and water resources.

The announcement by Lebanese Environment Minister Tamara Elzein that specialised teams had been dispatched to collect samples from the targeted sites for laboratory analysis reflects official concern about the possible use of internationally prohibited or highly toxic substances.

This incident cannot be viewed in isolation from the scorched-earth policy pursued by the Israeli army. It forms part of a pattern of systematic destruction of agricultural land, including the burning of approximately 9,000 hectares during recent military operations using white phosphorus and incendiary munitions.

The deliberate targeting of the means of life violates the laws of war and appears intended to undermine the living security of residents in the south and render their areas uninhabitable, thereby forcibly displacing them.

Euro-Med Monitor also documented Israeli aircraft spraying pesticides of unknown composition over farmland in the countryside of Quneitra in southern Syria on Monday and Tuesday, 26 and 27 January 2026. The direct targeting of civilian objects caused widespread crop destruction, posing a serious threat to economic and food security and violating farmers’ rights to work and to an adequate standard of living by destroying their primary sources of income without military justification.

The breach of territorial sovereignty and cross-border targeting of agricultural land constitute violations of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law. The use of chemical substances of unknown composition, given their destructive effects on vegetation and their direct threat to public health, constitutes a grave breach of international humanitarian law, which prohibits methods or means of warfare that cause indiscriminate harm, unnecessary suffering, or widespread, long-term damage to the natural environment.

Such practices expose their perpetrators to international criminal accountability. Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally attacking civilian objects or destroying property without imperative military necessity constitutes a war crime. The use of chemical substances to devastate agricultural land satisfies the material elements of these crimes by inflicting widespread, long-term harm on the natural environment and the foundations of civilian life.

This conduct reflects a systematic operational pattern long implemented by Israel in border areas east and north of the Gaza Strip, where aerial spraying of lethal chemicals has been used to enforce buffer zones by destroying vegetation and dismantling the food basket, despite repeated international warnings about the catastrophic consequences for food security and public health.

Euro-Med Monitor previously documented similar attacks through a comprehensive evidentiary archive supported by laboratory analyses and expert testimony. The findings showed that the substances used were not conventional pesticides but highly toxic chemical compounds with destructive effects that are difficult to contain. The harm extended beyond seasonal crop loss to long-term contamination of soil and groundwater, damage to livestock, and the dismantling of environmental infrastructure, rendering the restoration of agricultural activity nearly impossible. Such conduct constitutes a compounded violation that strikes at the core of the rights to life and to a healthy environment.

Read within the broader context of continued military targeting of agricultural land with various munitions, these incidents reveal a systematic policy of destruction that exceeds any legitimate military objective. The approach appears intended to render agricultural areas uninhabitable by dismantling economic infrastructure and depriving residents of their fundamental means of livelihood. It amounts to collective punishment prohibited under international law and constitutes an unlawful method of pressure designed to create a coercive environment that drives forced displacement by stripping populations of the means necessary for stability and survival.

The international community, particularly the United Nations, must act immediately by establishing an independent fact-finding mission to collect samples from affected soil and crops in southern Lebanon and the countryside of Quneitra, subject them to thorough laboratory analysis, determine the chemical composition of the substances used, assess their toxicity, and evaluate any potential violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention or relevant international environmental protocols, thereby removing doubt about the nature of this targeting.

States Parties to the Geneva Conventions whose national legislation permits the exercise of universal jurisdiction must fulfil their legal obligations by initiating criminal investigations and prosecuting Israeli officials responsible for ordering environmental destruction and the use of weapons with indiscriminate effects. Such acts constitute war crimes and grave breaches not subject to statutes of limitation and require the activation of individual accountability mechanisms against those responsible, wherever they may be found.

The UN Security Council must issue a binding resolution condemning the grave Israeli crimes and consider the obstruction of UNIFIL’s work and its forced withdrawal during the violations a flagrant breach of Resolution 1701. Euro-Med Monitor stresses the need to guarantee farmers and landowners the right to fair compensation for the economic and environmental losses they have sustained, and to obligate Israel, as the aggressor, to bear the costs of land rehabilitation and the remediation of any long-term ecological damage resulting from this contamination.

The Lebanese and Syrian governments should submit formal declarations to the Registry of the International Criminal Court (ICC) under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, thereby accepting the Court’s jurisdiction over crimes committed on their territories.

Euro-Med Monitor emphasises that this step is now an urgent necessity to halt the continued policy of impunity and enable the ICC Prosecutor to initiate independent investigations into Israel’s attacks on civilian objects as war crimes whose consequences transcend national borders and threaten human security across the region. The announcement by Lebanese Environment Minister Tamara Elzein that specialised teams had been dispatched to collect samples from the targeted sites for laboratory analysis reflects official concern about the possible use of internationally prohibited or highly toxic substances.

This incident cannot be viewed in isolation from the scorched-earth policy pursued by the Israeli army. It forms part of a pattern of systematic destruction of agricultural land, including the burning of approximately 9,000 hectares during recent military operations using white phosphorus and incendiary munitions.

The deliberate targeting of the means of life violates the laws of war and appears intended to undermine the living security of residents in the south and render their areas uninhabitable, thereby forcibly displacing them.

Euro-Med Monitor also documented Israeli aircraft spraying pesticides of unknown composition over farmland in the countryside of Quneitra in southern Syria on Monday and Tuesday, 26 and 27 January 2026. The direct targeting of civilian objects caused widespread crop destruction, posing a serious threat to economic and food security and violating farmers’ rights to work and to an adequate standard of living by destroying their primary sources of income without military justification.

The breach of territorial sovereignty and cross-border targeting of agricultural land constitute violations of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law. The use of chemical substances of unknown composition, given their destructive effects on vegetation and their direct threat to public health, constitutes a grave breach of international humanitarian law, which prohibits methods or means of warfare that cause indiscriminate harm, unnecessary suffering, or widespread, long-term damage to the natural environment.

Such practices expose their perpetrators to international criminal accountability. Under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentionally attacking civilian objects or destroying property without imperative military necessity constitutes a war crime. The use of chemical substances to devastate agricultural land satisfies the material elements of these crimes by inflicting widespread, long-term harm on the natural environment and the foundations of civilian life.

This conduct reflects a systematic operational pattern long implemented by Israel in border areas east and north of the Gaza Strip, where aerial spraying of lethal chemicals has been used to enforce buffer zones by destroying vegetation and dismantling the food basket, despite repeated international warnings about the catastrophic consequences for food security and public health.

Euro-Med Monitor previously documented similar attacks through a comprehensive evidentiary archive supported by laboratory analyses and expert testimony. The findings showed that the substances used were not conventional pesticides but highly toxic chemical compounds with destructive effects that are difficult to contain. The harm extended beyond seasonal crop loss to long-term contamination of soil and groundwater, damage to livestock, and the dismantling of environmental infrastructure, rendering the restoration of agricultural activity nearly impossible. Such conduct constitutes a compounded violation that strikes at the core of the rights to life and to a healthy environment.

Read within the broader context of continued military targeting of agricultural land with various munitions, these incidents reveal a systematic policy of destruction that exceeds any legitimate military objective. The approach appears intended to render agricultural areas uninhabitable by dismantling economic infrastructure and depriving residents of their fundamental means of livelihood. It amounts to collective punishment prohibited under international law and constitutes an unlawful method of pressure designed to create a coercive environment that drives forced displacement by stripping populations of the means necessary for stability and survival.

The international community, particularly the United Nations, must act immediately by establishing an independent fact-finding mission to collect samples from affected soil and crops in southern Lebanon and the countryside of Quneitra, subject them to thorough laboratory analysis, determine the chemical composition of the substances used, assess their toxicity, and evaluate any potential violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention or relevant international environmental protocols, thereby removing doubt about the nature of this targeting.

States Parties to the Geneva Conventions whose national legislation permits the exercise of universal jurisdiction must fulfil their legal obligations by initiating criminal investigations and prosecuting Israeli officials responsible for ordering environmental destruction and the use of weapons with indiscriminate effects. Such acts constitute war crimes and grave breaches not subject to statutes of limitation and require the activation of individual accountability mechanisms against those responsible, wherever they may be found.

The UN Security Council must issue a binding resolution condemning the grave Israeli crimes and consider the obstruction of UNIFIL’s work and its forced withdrawal during the violations a flagrant breach of Resolution 1701. Euro-Med Monitor stresses the need to guarantee farmers and landowners the right to fair compensation for the economic and environmental losses they have sustained, and to obligate Israel, as the aggressor, to bear the costs of land rehabilitation and the remediation of any long-term ecological damage resulting from this contamination.

The Lebanese and Syrian governments should submit formal declarations to the Registry of the International Criminal Court (ICC) under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, thereby accepting the Court’s jurisdiction over crimes committed on their territories.

Euro-Med Monitor emphasises that this step is now an urgent necessity to halt the continued policy of impunity and enable the ICC Prosecutor to initiate independent investigations into Israel’s attacks on civilian objects as war crimes whose consequences transcend national borders and threaten human security across the region. Euro-Med Monitor

Continue reading
Why Doesn’t Trump Want Netanyahu to Strike Iran?

By Dr Marwan Asmar

CROSSFIREARABIA – United States president Donald Trump seems to be a very happy man these days. He says he is about to reach a deal with Iran on its nuclear file very soon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the other hand is particularly worried, concerned, frustrated and even downhearted. He says ‘we need to strike Iran now before it’s too late and it goes ahead and develops a nuclear bomb’. 

But, and on the contrary, Trump believes that it’s because Iran is still at a weak stage before reaching nuclear  weapons capability, the US can force a deal that would make sure it checks its nuclear arsenal and would submit to the American will.

To prove his point, Trump through his US negotiating team led by Steve Witkoff, is continually talking to the Iranian team through Oman, now in their fifth mediating session about ironing out a new deal that would satisfy the US point of view and give the Iranians peace of mind and something to look forward to like lifting sanctions on the country.

To that extent, and no doubt for public relations, Trump is never short these days on complementing the Iranians with his glowing uttrances on the country and how it can become “great” again.

By their own accord however, both teams who are talking indirectly through the Omanis, say that negotiations is tough and may even going through a rough patch.

The Iranian delegates are sticking to their position, they want a deal but not at any price. They want to continue to pursue their uranium enrichment program believing this is a question of state and national sovereignty. They say they haven’t reached such a local, indegenous breakthrough in order to give it, whilst praising their scentific and technological advancements in this area of power.

The Americans on the other hand insist that Iranian divest itself from this nuclear process for uranium enrichment is a ‘redline’ as it leads to the possession of a nuclear weapon. To the Trump administration, this point is intractable which Iran has to give up on. 

But if this is the case why is the US continuing to talk to Iran? Further still, why should Trump be happy and talk about an impending deal that would lock the hands of the Iranians? Clearly, the American president is happy despite the murky regional waters.

Back to Israel. Netanyahu is deeply worried and wants to frustrate any impending nuclear deal. But he was always frustrated about Iran and argued, well, at least for the last 10 years, against talking to Iran and placating it. It was argued he was the person to convince Trump to leave the international JCPA treaty signed between the five-members of the UN Security Council and Iran in 2018.

Today however, and for Netanyahu, its “horrors” on the horizons. Leaked newspaper reports in The New York Times suggest there is deep tension between Trump and Netanyahu on this issue for the US president doesn’t want the later to embark on any action such as military strikes that would jeopardize any upcoming deal.

That is why Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and Mossad Chief David Barnea are being invited to Washington to the White House to impress upon them not to embark on a drastic Israeli action and bomb Iranian military and nuclear sites whilst negotiations are going on.

Many US and European experts however are fearful that Netanyahu wouldn’t be able to be controlled and if he embarks on striking Iran he would do so without consulting the Americans and go it alone and in spite of the ‘talked-about” pressure that is being exercised by the White House on Tel Aviv.

Regardless however, Trump wants a deal come what may for he believes this would be a great achievement for America and would vindicate his earlier action when he got the US out of the deal in 2018 and now in return for a better accord, and moving his own view to create a safer world and enforce his image that he is a man of peace and doesn’t support world wars like his recent attempt to stop the Ukraine War.

If Israel does strike Iran, in theory that would make Trump very unhappy because it would mean the United States is no longer able to control its strategic ally, or it could mean that behind the international and regional diplomatic chit-chat, the US is not too bothered about striking Iran.

But there are also other problems to consider: Wouldn’t a strike on Iran, especially on its nuclear sites, produce a spiral and a slippery-slope in which the latter would surely retaliate and be capable of doing so, with vehement force.

Apart from what that would do to the region, ie, “nuclear catastrophe”, would Netanyahu go along that road and risk annihilation for Israel and its surrounding areas.

These are tough questions to consider and may force Netanyahu to back down and listen to the US.

Continue reading
Experts: Trump’s Idea Violates International Law


In a proposal that has sent shockwaves across the globe, President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the US “take over” the Gaza Strip and turn it into a “Riviera of the Middle East” has faced fierce criticism from legal experts and human rights activists.

Trump’s controversial plan came during a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, where he said the US “will take over the Gaza Strip,” and proposed the permanent resettlement of Palestinians.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio later clarified Trump’s remarks, describing the plan as a “generous” offer aimed at rebuilding the war-ravaged enclave, adding that “people can move back in” after reconstruction.

According to Michael Lynk, who served as the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territories from 2016 to 2022, Trump’s plan “clearly” violates international law.

“Under international law, it’s clearly illegal,” Lynk, currently an associate professor at the University of Western Ontario, told Anadolu. “Just talking about the forced displacement of Palestinians — the ethnic cleansing of the 2.2 million Palestinians in Gaza — that would be a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which both the United States and Israel have signed on to.”

Lynk also pointed out the legal repercussions of such an action under the 1998 Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC).

“It would also be a crime against humanity,” he added, noting that the ICC has jurisdiction over Gaza, even though neither the US nor Israel are signatories of the Rome Statute. “Their leaders could be criminally liable for initiating forced displacement of the Palestinians.”

As the world watches closely, the UN Security Council has already addressed Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed nearly 62,000 people, having added thousands who are missing in the rubble, since a cross-border attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, according to Gaza’s authorities.

In June 2024, the Security Council adopted resolution 2735, calling for an immediate and durable ceasefire in Gaza and rejecting any attempts at “demographic or territorial change” in the Gaza Strip.

“We have both these strong legal and diplomatic guardrails that would be opposed to this,” Lynk said, referring to the both Rome Statute and the June 2024 Security Council resolution.


‘Clearly a war crime’

Jonathan Kuttab, an international human rights lawyer and Executive Director of the Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA), a movement of Palestinian Christians, also voiced strong criticism of Trump’s controversial Gaza plan. Describing the proposal as “shocking on many levels,” Kuttab said that it “totally disregards international law.”

“You can’t just go and take another piece of territory and own it,” he told Anadolu. “It’s a war crime. It’s clearly a war crime.”

Kuttab also pointed to the moral dimensions of the plan, calling it “totally immoral.”

He questioned how it was even conceivable to displace over 2 million people in the Gaza Strip from their homes, likening this to an attempt at ethnic cleansing.

“He (Trump) is saying it in the presence of Netanyahu, who’s smirking because he’s the one who destroyed Gaza,” Kuttab noted. “It’s totally unacceptable. It’s also anachronistic.”

Kuttab added that the proposal’s underlying motive was both ideological and practical.

“The ideological aspect is to get people to start thinking in terms of accepting the idea that Palestinians can be removed from Palestine permanently,” he said. “The practical thing is to allow Netanyahu’s government to survive … The government will collapse unless you resume the war, or unless you do something to get rid of the people in Gaza. So Trump is willing to do the work for Netanyahu.”


ICC’s ability to issue arrest warrants for Trump

Lynk also indicated that if the US, with the support of Israel, forcibly removes Palestinians from Gaza and forces them either to Egypt or Jordan, the ICC would have the ability to issue arrest warrants for Trump, Netanyahu, and others involved in such a plan.

The implications of Trump’s proposal extend beyond legal concerns. The international community, particularly in the Arab and Muslim world, have strongly rejected such a move. Everyone in the region and beyond remembers the long history of Palestinian displacement, including the 1948 Nakba, when over 750,000 Palestinians were forced to flee their homes, never to be able to go back.

“No Arab or Muslim leader in the region could ever support the forced displacement of Palestinians,” Lynk said.


If Palestinians must leave Gaza, ‘the appropriate place would be Israel’

“If Palestinians have to leave Gaza in order for the rubble to be removed from the war that Israel inflicted on Gaza and to remove the 30,000 unexploded munitions in Gaza, then … the appropriate place for them to move to would be Israel itself,” he suggested.

This, Lynk argued, would fulfill the right of return as enshrined in UN Resolution 194, which guarantees Palestinians this right to go back to their homes that Israel forced them to leave.

“That would seem to be the path that is most consistent with international law and with a rights-based approach.”

The implications of Trump’s proposal could reach beyond the borders of Gaza. Lynk expressed concern that the plan could pave the way for further Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Trump has already reversed Biden-era policies regarding the West Bank by removing sanctions on Israeli settlers and groups.


‘We don’t have to wait for the Hague to act’

Lynk and Kuttab agree that Trump’s plan would be dead on arrival, given the unified rejection it would face from the Arab and Muslim world.

However, Kuttab warned that if Trump attempts to follow through, it would severely undermine the international order.

“The Security Council, of course, will do nothing, because there is the veto power there, but national countries have the right under international law — in fact, the obligation to do something,” he continued.

“We don’t have to wait for the Hauge to act … Every country has local courts that can carry out and implement international law, because crimes against humanity and war crimes have universal jurisdiction,” he stressed in Anadolu.

Continue reading
Moroccans Protest For Gaza Outside Parliament in Rabat

Moroccans protested in Rabat in front of the parliament building, Friday, to condemn the Israeli genocide on the Gaza Strip ongoing now for 14 months.

The “Working Group for Palestine”, a non-governmental group, organized the protest to condemn the Israeli genocide in Gaza and in which dozens of participants carried pictures of Al-Aqsa and the Palestinian flag.

The protesters in front of the parliament building also condemned “Israel’s continued defiance of all international resolutions, including the International Criminal Court’s decision” regarding the arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant,” according to Anadolu.

Israel continues its massacres, ignoring two arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court on 21 November against Netanyahu and ex-Defense Minister Galant, on charges of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians in Gaza.

The protesters chanted slogans praising the Palestinian resistance, and others criticizing the continued Western support for Tel Aviv despite the genocide that has been ongoing for more than a year.

Among these slogans were “Long live the resistance… long live Palestine”, “We are all ready to sacrifice for steadfast Palestine”, “From Rabat to Gaza… resistance and pride”, and “Loyalty… to the blood of the martyrs”.

The participants raised banners reading “the Moroccan people demand the dissolution and cancellation of the seductive Israeli parliamentary group”, and “Normalization is a crime and treason”.

With American support, Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza since 7 October, 2023, leaving more than 150,000 Palestinians dead and wounded, most of them children and women, and more than 11,000 missing, amid massive destruction and famine that has killed dozens of children and elderly people, in one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world.

Israel continues its massacres, ignoring the UN Security Council’s decision for their immediate end, and the International Court of Justice’s orders to take measures to prevent acts of genocide and improve the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Continue reading
The A, B, C to a Ceasefire

A cease-fire agreement between Lebanon and Israel went into force early Wednesday to end over 14 months of fighting between the Israeli army and Hezbollah group.

In a 13-item document obtained from a government meeting on Wednesday, the Lebanese Cabinet reaffirmed its commitment to implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1701 in its entirety.

Resolution 1701, adopted on Aug. 11, 2006, calls for a complete halt to hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel and the establishment of a weapons-free zone between the Blue Line and the Litani River in southern Lebanon, with exceptions for the Lebanese army and the UN peacekeeping mission (UNIFIL).

The cease-fire deal took effect hours after US President Joe Biden said a proposal to end the conflict had been reached, amid hopes it would stop Israeli airstrikes on Lebanese towns and cities and end the year-long cross-border fighting.

Over 3,800 people have been killed in Israeli attacks in Lebanon and over 1 million displaced since last October, according to Lebanese health authorities.

The document seen by Anadolu includes 13 items as follows:

1- Israel and Lebanon will implement a cessation of hostilities beginning at 04:00 hours (IST/EET) on November 27, 2024, in accordance with the commitments detailed below.

2- From 04:00 hours (IST/EET) on November 27, 2024, forward, the Government of Lebanon will prevent Hezbollah and all other armed groups in its territory from carrying out any operations against Israel. In return, Israel will not conduct any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, including civilian, military, or other state targets, by land, air, or sea.

3- Israel and Lebanon recognize the importance of UNSCR 1701 in achieving lasting peace and security and commit to taking steps towards its full implementation without violations.

4- These commitments do not preclude either Israel or Lebanon from exercising their inherent right to self-defense, consistent with international law.

5- Without prejudice to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and its responsibilities, or to commitments in UNSCR 1701 and its predecessor resolutions, Lebanon’s official military and security forces, infrastructure, and weaponry will be the only armed groups, arms, and related materiel deployed in the southern Litani area, as shown in the attached LAF Deployment Plan (hereinafter “the Southern Litani Area”).

6- Consistent with UNSCR 1701 and its predecessor resolutions, and to prevent the reestablishment and rearmament of non-state armed groups in Lebanon, any sales or supply of arms and related materiel into Lebanon will be regulated and controlled by the Government of Lebanon. Additionally, all production of arms and related materiel within Lebanon will be regulated and controlled by the Government of Lebanon.

7- Upon the commencement of the cessation of hostilities (as per paragraph 1), the Government of Lebanon will provide all necessary authorities, including freedom of movement, to Lebanon’s official military and security forces. It will instruct them, consistent with UNSCR 1701 and its predecessor resolutions, to:

a. Monitor and enforce against any unauthorized entry of arms and related materiel into and throughout Lebanon, including through all border crossings, and against the unauthorized production of arms and materiel within Lebanon.

b. Dismantle all unauthorized facilities involved in the production of arms and related materiel in the Southern Litani Area and prevent the establishment of such facilities in the future.

c. Confiscate all unauthorized arms and dismantle unauthorized infrastructure and military positions in the Southern Litani Area.

8- The United States and France intend to work within the Military Technical Committee for Lebanon (MTC4L) to enable and achieve the deployment of 10,000 LAF soldiers to southern Lebanon as soon as possible. They also intend to work with the international community to support the LAF’s capabilities.

9- Upon the cessation of hostilities, and in coordination with UNIFIL, Israel and Lebanon will reformulate and enhance the tripartite mechanism (hereinafter “the Mechanism”), which will be hosted by UNIFIL, chaired by the United States, and include France. The Mechanism will:

a. Monitor, verify, and assist in ensuring enforcement of these commitments.

b. Strengthen the LAF’s capacity to inspect and dismantle unauthorized sites, confiscate weapons, and prevent the presence of unauthorized armed groups.

10- Israel and Lebanon will report any alleged violations to the Mechanism and UNIFIL, without prejudice to their rights to communicate directly with the UN Security Council.

11- Upon cessation of hostilities, Lebanon will deploy its official military and security forces to all borders and regulate all land, air, and sea crossings.

12- Israel will withdraw its forces south of the Blue Line in a phased manner while the LAF deploys in the Southern Litani Area, as detailed in the attached Deployment Plan. This process will be completed within 60 days.

13- Israel and Lebanon request that the United States, in partnership with the United Nations, facilitate indirect negotiations to resolve remaining disputed points along the Blue Line, consistent with UNSCR 1701.

These commitments aim to enable civilians on both sides of the Blue Line to return safely to their homes and lands. The United States and France further intend to lead international efforts to support capacity-building and economic development throughout Lebanon to promote stability and prosperity in the region.”

Continue reading