The Israeli Parliament (the Knesset) opened its new session, on Tuesday, with sharp and continuing divisions among its main blocs, which prompted President Isaac Herzog to ask the representatives to extend their hands to unity, and to do “everything to avoid a repeat of the elections.” Herzog's call did not resonate after the arguments in the opening session showed the wide gap.
In its first move, the bloc of the Prime Minister in charge of forming the government, Gadi Eisenkot, submitted a draft law to form an official investigation committee into the “attack of October 7, 2023,” a step that the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejected and evaded for 3 years, for fear of being politically convicted of failure.
On the other hand, Netanyahu repeated his accusations against the “Change” camp led by Eisenkot, and launched a fierce attack on the Arab parties (which won 19 seats in a historic achievement), accusing them of seeking to “destroy Israel.”
Herzog said at the opening of the session: “The people you represent here wish to see an outstretched hand that brings unity and hope. “I ask you to extend a hand of understanding, even between adversaries, and to look at each other with compassion.”
He added: “This Knesset must complete its days (its electoral cycle). “Do everything in your power to avoid a repeat of the elections.”
During his speech, Eisenkot pledged to establish a national emergency government, without it being clear how he would do so. All members of the Knesset arrived at the headquarters early and took the constitutional oath after a long and tense day.
Eisenkot is not waiting
The Change Bloc, headed by Eisenkot, did not wait and immediately submitted, even before the session began, 67 signatures to replace the current Speaker of the Knesset, who belongs to Likud, Amir Ohana, to be replaced by MK from the Yashar Party, Matan Kahane, in the first move to “take control” of the Knesset.
The agreements between the forces of the Eisenkot camp regarding the presidency of the Knesset and the chairmanship of other committees demonstrated the desire to oust Netanyahu’s men in the Knesset and get rid of his legacy. In a joint statement, Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Yair Golan, Avigdor Lieberman, and Yair Lapid announced that an agreement had been reached regarding the speaker of the Knesset and the distribution of a number of parliamentary positions during the period assigned to form the government.
Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper said that everyone was determining the scope of their influence in the Knesset. According to the newspaper, Eisenkot and his party won the presidency of the Knesset, Benet’s party won the Finance Committee, and Lieberman took control of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee in light of his rapprochement with the Haredim, while the “Democrats” want to take the lead in the legislative campaign.
In addition to the draft law to investigate the failures of the “Seventh of October” attack, the camp responsible for forming the government presented a set of draft laws that include “the comprehensive cancellation of the controversial judicial amendments proposed by the Netanyahu government, which caused unprecedented Israeli demonstrations.”
Yedioth said that it is still unclear whether the leaders of the “Change” bloc will succeed in forming the government, but it is certain that their plan to “control” the Knesset will be implemented.
Attack on Arabs
Knesset Speaker Ohana did not announce when he would leave his position, but he attacked Kahane and could only say that he “depends on Arab votes.” He also attacked the Arab representatives in the Knesset, and the head of the “Unified Arab List” Mansour Abbas (he won 7 seats).
Ohana said: “For the sake of the future of Zionism, we must not cooperate with those who promote false conspiracies and call for the invasion of the land of the Jewish people.” Following Ohana's statements, a skirmish occurred.
Immediately after Ohana's incitement, the extremist Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, entered and attacked the Joint Arab List (which won 12 seats), and interrupted its leader, Youssef Jabareen, as he was taking the oath in the Knesset, saying: “Who are you swearing off to?” Is it for (Hamas)?”... Joint List members responded: “Supporter of terrorism.”
In a shot that caught the attention of the Israeli media, Unified President Mansour Abbas did not leave the Knesset hall when the singing of the “Israeli National Anthem” began, unlike the Arab members, and he stood with the audience during its chanting.
The Arab parties in Israel are represented by two blocs: the “Joint Arab List” and the “Unified List,” and together they won 19 seats in an unprecedented achievement. While the “joint” Arab nationalist and leftist trends themselves reject involvement in an Israeli government and adopt a more stringent discourse against the authorities, Abbas participated in 2021 in a government alliance with Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.
Although Abbas remained in the hall, he was not spared another attack led by Netanyahu later against the Arabs. Netanyahu said in his speech before the new Knesset that a national unity government must be formed to confront all threats, including a nuclear Iran. He added: Any government that relies on “terrorist supporters and haters of Israel” will fail.
Netanyahu launched a fierce attack on the two Arab parties, accusing them of seeking to destroy Israel. “The only difference is that they disagree about what kind of state should be established here on the ruins of the Jewish state,” he claimed.
Back to questioning the elections
Netanyahu returned to questioning the election results, and demanded an investigation into external influence that marred their course, according to his claim. The head of the “Together” Party, Naftali Bennett, responded sharply to Netanyahu: “What about the October 7 investigations?” Ben Gvir then shouted in Bennett’s face: “Do you want to sit with the Joint Party?” The prime minister's wife, Sara Netanyahu, also intervened in the discussion and shouted at Bennett.
Eisenkot responded, saying: “I listened to the outgoing Prime Minister’s speech, which was characterized by delusion, division, hatred and shame, and I became increasingly convinced that he is not qualified to remain in office even for one more minute. We must act urgently to form a national emergency government. His continued rule divides Israel and puts its security at risk.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio renewed an American proposal that Lebanon had rejected to verify the withdrawal of Hezbollah and the deployment of the Lebanese army in typical areas in southern Lebanon, which is to assign the task to a civilian group, at a time when France is working with the United States to find a “formula” that guarantees avoiding a vacuum in southern Lebanon after the withdrawal of UNIFIL.
The French-American discussions revolve around two files related to southern Lebanon. The first is avoiding the post-UNIFIL vacuum, while the second is the “verification mechanism” in the experimental areas from which Israel is withdrawing. This movement reflects the activation of diplomatic communication in light of the Israeli occupation of more than 55 towns and villages on the southern border, and after the failure to make progress in expanding the experimental areas in southern Lebanon, against the backdrop of disagreements over the verification mechanism.
Barrow: Towards a new security architecture
Meanwhile, Paris is seeking to establish a mechanism to ensure an international presence in the south of the country, large areas of which Israel occupies, after the end of the mandate of the United Nations force at the end of this year. Paris, in cooperation with Rome, wants to form a multinational force to succeed UNIFIL.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Tuesday that there was “agreement on the necessity of avoiding a security vacuum” in southern Lebanon following the withdrawal of the United Nations force scheduled for the end of the year. Barrow stated following a meeting of the Group of Seven that the consensus includes “the need to move forward and quickly towards a new security structure,” considering that the meeting of the group’s foreign ministers on Monday and Tuesday in Paris “constituted an opportunity to make progress” on this issue.
He explained: “I sensed a collective desire to provide responses to the aspirations of the Lebanese people and their authorities. As for making progress, I would say that the essence of diplomacy lies in developing ideas through discussion and dialogue. Therefore, I believe that the Group of Seven (G7) meeting actually constituted an opportunity to achieve progress on the Lebanese file.”
Barrow said: “France took the initiative to put forward proposals in this regard, which were first presented to the Lebanese authorities. I visited Lebanon myself a few days ago to discuss it with them. I also presented these proposals to my American counterpart, who assumes the role of mediation between the Lebanese and Israeli sides. It is true that electoral deadlines - whether in the United States or in Israel - may have led to the postponement of some discussions that could have been resolved otherwise. However, I have great hope that a consensus will be reached, because the goal, in essence, is widely accepted, which is Israel’s withdrawal from the south, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the restoration of a strong state that monopolizes arms and is able to guarantee security and prosperity for the entire population and various components of Lebanon, including the Shiite community.
Regarding the guarantees that France can provide, especially regarding the new international framework after the departure of UNIFIL, he said: “I believe that this security structure must be based on existing Security Council resolutions, especially Resolution 1701, and it must also contribute to the success of the tripartite agreement (framework agreement).” He continued: “The success of the tripartite agreement depends on this security structure. If a security vacuum is allowed, the conditions for success may not be met.”
Proposed French formula
The final results of the discussions between the American and French sides regarding the “formula” that will be agreed upon to fill the UNIFIL vacuum have not yet been revealed, but what Barrow spoke about coincides with information in Beirut about a French “formula” to avoid the vacuum, which was proposed last month before the Israeli elections, and which Lebanon views as an “attempt to agree” with the American side, represented by giving the “framework agreement” between Lebanon and Israel an international umbrella, in conjunction with extending UNIFIL and activating the resolution. 1701.
Lebanese sources familiar with the previous French formula told Asharq Al-Awsat that the idea is to “merge Resolution 1701 and the Framework Agreement,” and is based on “renewing the mission of UNIFIL for a minimum period of six months, and its mission will be to implement Resolution 1701 and the Framework Agreement at the same time,” which means “putting the framework agreement that was signed between Lebanon and Israel under American sponsorship last June, under the umbrella of the United Nations.” As for UNIFIL’s mission, according to the French proposal, it will be limited to “ensuring the implementation of Resolution 1701 and the Framework Agreement, or expanding the number and tasks of the observer mission to about 1,500 members at a minimum, and entrusting it with the task of implementing the two agreements.”
The sources said: “Lebanon has not yet been informed of the results of the American-French talks, but Rubio’s words refer to a specific formula that was discussed between Washington and Paris,” noting that the picture will become clearer “early next week with the visit of the American Permanent Representative to the United Nations and its representative in the Security Council, Ambassador Mike Waltz, to Beirut, to discuss the (UNIFIL) file and the alternative formula.”
Lebanon is counting on American pressure in this regard, in light of the Israeli rejection of any subsequent presence of an international force that includes French military personnel. Relations between Paris and Tel Aviv are deteriorating despite the positive signals that France sends from time to time. While Paris urges the Lebanese authorities to “take action” and respect the commitments it has made to the international community, including the full implementation of the content of International Resolution No. 1701, the Lebanese state is still confused about the path it will take to achieve this goal.
Civil mission
Regarding the verification mechanism file, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Monday after discussing the Lebanon file with French President Emmanuel Macron: “The goal is to have a reliable party on the ground capable of verifying the parties’ commitment to (the terms of the framework agreement) in the experimental areas. This does not necessarily require a military mission like the one (performed) by UNIFIL... but it could be civilian.”
Lebanon rejected this American proposal in the military negotiating meeting between Lebanon and Israel under American sponsorship in Tampa, United States, as ministerial sources close to the Lebanese presidency confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat, while Israel rejected a Lebanese proposal to strengthen the number and tasks of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization mission in southern Lebanon, which has been in place since 1949 (UNTSO). The sources said that Lebanon “rejects the principle of replacing UNIFIL with a civilian force (NGO), regardless of its nature and formation, because it believes that the experiment will not be effective.” The sources indicated that Beirut demands “an effective, reliable force that enjoys the cover of the United Nations,” so “Lebanon demanded that the mandate of UNIFIL be extended or that the number of observer forces (UNTSO) be increased to a minimum of 1,500 members.”
Questioning the success of the civil experiment
The Lebanese rejection of any civilian force intersects with a neutral military point of view, which does not believe that replacing UNIFIL with a civilian force will be effective. The military expert, retired Brigadier General Saeed Al-Qazah, said: “I imagine that the solution lies in expanding the tasks of the Truce Supervision Committee by increasing its number and providing logistical support so that it can be the mediator between the Lebanese and Israeli armies.” He said in a statement to Asharq Al-Awsat that any civilian mission “will not succeed,” adding that the experience of the “Blackwater” force that was adopted in Iraq after the fall of President Saddam Hussein’s regime “was a failure, and the adoption of any similar force cannot lead to a result, and it will not have any role in the south.”
Al-Qazah explained: “The UNIFIL forces, which represent 45 countries, barely carried out their mission, so how about a civilian company?” He added: “I believe that the NGO can remove mines and clean areas of war remnants, but it cannot have a role in the missions of monitoring the ceasefire and mediating between the Lebanese and Israeli armies.” He continued: “Even the Truce Supervision Organization, if its tasks expand, will only be to monitor the ceasefire and be the mediator between the two armies, as long as Lebanon refuses direct coordination within a joint operations room.”
