Lebanese, Syrian defense ministers ink deal after border security talks
RIYADH: Syria and Lebanon signed an agreement emphasizing the strategic importance of demarcating the borders between the two countries, Al Ekhbariya reported early on Friday.
The defense ministers of Lebanon and Syria met in Jeddah on Thursday to coordinate and enhance cooperation on security and military issues.
The Syrian delegation was headed by Murhaf Abu Qasra and the Lebanese delegation was led by Michel Menassa.
The sides will form legal and specialized committees in a number of fields, and will activate bilateral coordination mechanisms to deal with security and military challenges, especially those that may arise on the border area.
Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, who facilitated the talks, said he hoped the agreement marks a new phase in relations between the two neighbors.
The ministers expressed satisfaction with the discussion and agreed to hold a follow-up meeting in Saudi Arabia.
Border tensions flared up earlier in March after the new authorities in Syria accused Lebanese armed group Hezbollah of kidnapping three soldiers into Lebanon and killing them.
The Iran-backed group, which fought alongside the forces of toppled Syrian president Bashar Assad, denied involvement.
Cross-border clashes that followed left seven Lebanese dead.
In a statement, Saudi Arabia said it supported Syria and Lebanon resolving their differences through political and diplomatic dialogue while upholding sovereignty, stability, and international law, according to Asharq.
Saudi Arabia affirmed its full support for all that achieves security and stability in Syria and Lebanon and contributes to preserving security and stability in the region, Al Ekhbariya reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leaders
5 hours ago
- Leaders
Israel Targets Palestinians Heading to Aid Distribution Site
The Israeli military on Tuesday opened fire on Palestinians while they were trying to reach an aid distribution site in southern Gaza, for the third time in three days. Meanwhile, the UN has called for an independent investigation into the targeting of Palestinians near the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) aid distribution site in Gaza's southern city of Rafah. Killing Aid Seekers On early Tuesday, June 3, 2025, the Israeli military killed at least 27 people, including two women and three children, and injured others while they were heading to the GHF's aid distribution site, the Associated Press (AP) reported citing the head of Gaza's Health Ministry's records department, Zaher al-Waheidi. This marked the third incident in three days. According to the AP, all the shooting incidents took place at the Flag Roundabout, located one kilometer away from one of the GHF's distribution sites in the southern city of Rafah, an area that has been turned into an Israeli military zone. Israeli Denial The Israeli military said that its troops opened fire at several suspects who did not adhere to the designated access routes, according to CNN. It said that its forces do not prevent Gazan civilians from reaching the humanitarian aid distribution sites. 'The troops carried out warning fire, and after the suspects failed to retreat, additional shots were directed near a few individual suspects who advanced toward the troops,' the Israeli military said in a statement, adding it was looking into reports of casualties. Multiple Incidents The Tuesday shooting occurred near the same location where previous shooting incidents took place over the past two days. On Monday morning, Israeli troops killed three Palestinians and injured dozens while they were on their way to the GHF aid distribution site in Rafah, according to Palestinian and hospital officials. Similarly, the Israeli military shot dead dozens of Palestinians in the same area on Sunday, according to Palestinian officials and eyewitnesses. The Palestinian officials said that the incident claimed the lives of 31 people and wounded dozens. However, the Israeli military denied firing 'within or near' the aid distribution site. GHF Response On its part, the GHF denied any violence in or around its site. In a statement, it said that aid distribution occurred 'safely and without incident.' It added that the Israeli military was investigating whether civilians were injured 'after moving beyond the designated safe corridor and into a closed military zone.' 'This was an area well beyond our secure distribution site and operations area. We recognize the difficult nature of the situation and advise all civilians to remain in the safe corridor when traveling to our distribution sites,' the statement noted. Aid Delivery Mechanism The GHF is an Israeli and US-backed organization which operates a new aid distribution mechanism. It involves establishing a number of distribution hubs in southern and central Gaza, where Palestinian civilians will head once a week to receive one aid package per family. The GHF cooperates with private American contractors to secure aid trucks until their arrival at the distribution sites. However, the GHF has faced mounting criticism from the UN and other humanitarian organizations, which refused to work with the organization amid fears that its distribution model will force the displacement of Palestinians. Moreover, the GHF head resigned, citing concerns over 'humanitarian principles,' including neutrality and independence. UN Calls for Investigation After the Sunday shooting incident, the UN called for an independent investigation. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, expressed concern over the reports of shooting Gazan civilians seeking aid. 'I am appalled by the reports of Palestinians killed and injured while seeking aid in Gaza yesterday,' he said in a statement on Monday. 'I call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events and for perpetrators to be held accountable,' the UN head said. Dehumanization of Gazans On the same day, the UN human rights chief, Volker Türk, sharply criticized the current aid delivery mechanism as 'unacceptable' and 'dehumanizing.' In an interview with the BBC, he said: 'It's heartbreaking. I cannot believe that humanitarian aid is delivered in such circumstances. It's unacceptable, it's dehumanizing and I really hope there is a rethinking of the whole absolute need to get humanitarian aid in quickly and not through the current system.' 'I think what it shows is utter disregard for civilians. Can you imagine people that have been absolutely desperate for food, for medicine, for almost three months and then they have to run for it or try to get it in the most desperate circumstances? It does show a huge dehumanization of the people who are desperately in need,' he noted. Short link : Post Views: 50
Asharq Al-Awsat
6 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Hezbollah: The Causes and Functions of Delirium
Doctors and analysts agree that delirium is a sudden change in the brain function that leads to disturbance and mental confusion. It often results from a transformation the body is subjected to; it could be surgery or withdrawal that follows long-term alcohol abuse. One of the more acute symptoms of delirium is inattention and reduced awareness of one's surroundings; the delirious can sometimes forget who he is, where he is, and what he is doing there. This can result in physiological disorientation, manifesting as either near-paralytic lethargy or an erratic. The statements coming from Hezbollah since the seismic change resulting from the 'support war' and its ramifications are strikingly delirious. One could probably say, albeit with some creative license, that an analogy could be drawn with both surgery and recovery from addiction. Indeed, one would think that the war, the operation, has reduced Hezbollah's triumphalist intoxication and its domineering behavior, challenging the party to adapt to this new reality. Yet, listening to Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem (and some of the party's officials and spokesmen) set deadlines, speak of giving diplomacy and the government a chance, threaten to not extend these deadlines if they are not met, double down on the principle of 'the army, the people and the resistance,' deny defeat, and adamantly refuse to relinquish their weapons, one unequivocally concludes that its utter failure to adapt has reinforced its delirium. However, accuracy demands recognizing that this outcome is not without justification. Adaptation becomes exceedingly difficult when there has been something of a consensus, for over four decades, on idealizing the addiction. The binge that began in the early 1980s and ended only a few months ago had been presented as the epitome of sobriety, while those who refused to endorse this view were called on to treat their sick and scheming souls. The long-standing duality of arms, which allowed an illegitimate actor to make decisions of war and peace, was framed as the ultimate embodiment of prudence and the essence of truth. This extreme distortion had the upper hand in appointing presidents and ministers and shaping national policy and planning. As for the fact the party, without an official mandate, had constituted a parallel society that had been above and outside the state, and had branded others traitors at a whim, this had also seemed like its indisputable right. For years, Hezbollah was allowed to inform us that we were under threat as our senses and lived experiences were telling us the opposite, and it was allowed to warn us that we must resist, regardless of our desires, thoughts, or capabilities. Meanwhile, its subordinates were tasked with deciding which films must not be watched, and which books should not be translated or read, on our behalf. This makes the transition difficult. From a phase in which addiction ruled and delirium was indulged, forcing others to adapt to it, we are now entering a phase in which delirium is constrained and called by its real and dangerous names, while its authors are the ones expected to adapt. In other words, we are transitioning from an era in which reality had been made to accommodate addiction, to one in which the addict is now called upon to accommodate reality. And, without a doubt, that is extremely difficult. This delirium nonetheless remains functional. Iran will continue to find use for it so long as it is negotiating with Washington. Hezbollah's weapons are to remain in its hands and not handed over to the state; just as the Houthis' fireworks in Yemen, this bargaining chip must be maintained. Yet, everything seems smaller than it had once been: this applies just as much to the causes that are promoted as it does to material capacities and tools. The trajectory they have been on suggests that the war has led to decline and contraction, in parallel with Iran's own transformation from a frightening force with serious leverage to a fearful one desperately hanging on to its damaged cards. The contrast between the two phases could be summed up as follows: in the previous phase, a prime minister who went against the party and its patrons' wishes would be assassinated in a grand theatrical attack, and the ensuing investigation would be obstructed. In the current phase, the prime minister is spitefully and obscenely slandered a 'Zionist' for going against these wishes. This is not to downplay the gravity of what is happening today, especially in light of the recent municipal election results that showed this delirious consciousness can, even in defeat, obtain (for reasons too complex to unpack here) another mass pledge of allegiance. This is the case despite the immense costs of maintaining the allegiance - for the security of the Lebanese people, for their economy, for the country's reconstruction, and for the effort to ensure a national recovery. Those continuing to pledge allegiance may well ultimately end up hurting the most. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, and it must not be tolerated. If all Lebanese are called upon to make great efforts, coupled with a reduction of provocations, to integrate a third of the population into a unified national project, then those directly concerned are the first to be called on to break away from a delusional and defeated project that cannot lead anywhere safe.
Asharq Al-Awsat
6 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Iran Says Continuing Uranium Enrichment on Its Soil 'Red Line'
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tuesday that Iran's right to enrich uranium on its soil was a "red line" after the United States submitted its proposal for a new nuclear deal. "Continuing enrichment on Iranian soil is our red line," Araghchi said while on a visit to Lebanon, adding that his country will respond to the proposal in the coming days based on Iran's "principled positions and the interests of the Iranian people". US President Donald Trump on Monday reiterated that Iran will not be allowed any enrichment of uranium under a potential deal with Washington. Araghchi said the US proposal, submitted through mediator Oman, has "many ambiguities and questions". On Saturday, Iran said it received "elements" of a US proposal for a nuclear deal following five rounds of talks that started in April and were mediated by Oman. Uranium enrichment has remained a key point of contention between Washington and Tehran in the talks to seal a nuclear deal, with Iran defending what it says is its right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program and the US calling it a "red line". "We will not ask anyone for permission to continue enriching uranium in Iran. However, we are ready to take steps... to ensure that this enrichment will not lead to the production of nuclear weapons," Araghchi said. Araghchi was visiting Beirut following a stop in Cairo on Monday, where he met with Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Grossi on Monday called for more transparency from Iran following a leaked report that showed Tehran had increased production of highly enriched uranium. The IAEA report showed that Iran has ramped up production of uranium enriched up to 60 percent purity -- close to the roughly 90 percent level needed for atomic weapons. Western countries, including the United States, have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, while Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
