The Lebanese government had previously indicated its willingness to engage in direct negotiations with Israel, a stance it took over a month ago.
Israel, however, was not receptive to the idea at that time.
A recent phone conversation between the Lebanese ambassador to the US and the Israeli ambassador to the US, which took place at approximately 9pm Beirut time (17:00 GMT), has sparked confusion.
Following the call, the Lebanese president’s office announced that the two diplomats had agreed to discuss a potential ceasefire and in-person negotiations scheduled for Tuesday in the US.
However, a statement from the Israeli ambassador soon after cast doubt on the agreement, claiming that a ceasefire with Hezbollah was not on the table due to the militant group being the primary obstacle to peace.
This discrepancy highlights the challenges in reaching a consensus, particularly given that the Lebanese government is not a party to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
A statement attributed to Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, was broadcast on al-Manar TV, in which he vowed that the group would continue to fight, even if it meant sacrificing everything.
In a further escalation, Hezbollah announced the launch of more than 50 operations targeting Israeli troops, who remain engaged in a widening ground invasion in Lebanon.
Skardu.pk is one of the leading authentic news and information platform focusing on adventure tourism, regional and world affairs.
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team
- Editorial Team