Hamas still to give response on Gaza truce plan: Qatar

BEIRUT: The UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon said Monday that since a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah it had uncovered more than 225 weapons caches in the south and referred them to the army.
The November truce largely ended more than a year of hostilities between Israel and the Iran-backed group, including two months of all-out war.
Under the deal, Hezbollah was to withdraw its fighters north of Lebanon’s Litani River and Israel was to pull all its forces from south Lebanon, however it has kept troops in five areas it deems “strategic.”
The Lebanese army has been deploying in the area as Israeli forces have withdrawn and has been dismantling Hezbollah infrastructure there.
Since the November 27 truce began, “peacekeepers have found over 225 weapons caches and referred them” to the Lebanese army, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon said in a statement.
UNIFIL also has a seat on the ceasefire monitoring committee, alongside truce brokers France and the United States, and the Israeli and Lebanese governments.
“With UNIFIL support,” Lebanon’s army has “redeployed to more than 120 permanent positions south of the Litani,” the peacekeeping force said.
“Full (army) deployment is hindered by the presence of Israeli forces in Lebanese territory,” it added.
Israel’s military still carries out regular strikes in Lebanon, saying it is targeting Hezbollah operatives and infrastructure.
The ceasefire deal was based on a UN Security Council resolution that says Lebanese troops and UN peacekeepers should be the only forces in south Lebanon, and that calls for the disarmament of all non-state groups.
President Joseph Aoun said last month the Lebanese army was now deployed in more than 85 percent of the south and that the sole obstacle to full control across the frontier area was “Israel’s occupation of five border positions.”
Lebanese authorities have vowed to implement a state monopoly on bearing arms, though Aoun has said disarming Hezbollah is a “delicate” matter that requires dialogue.
Hezbollah, long a dominant force in Lebanon, was heavily weakened in its latest war with Israel.

THE HAGUE: Israel has asked the International Criminal Court to dismiss its arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant while ICC judges reconsider complex jurisdictional questions.
In a 14-page document dated May 9 but posted on the ICC website on Monday, Israel argued the warrants issued in November were null and void while judges weigh a previous Israeli challenge to the ICC’s jurisdiction in the case.
In a ruling that made headlines around the world, the ICC found “reasonable grounds” to believe Netanyahu and Gallant bore “criminal responsibility” for war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the war in Gaza.
The court also issued a war crimes warrant against top Hamas commander Mohammed Deif over the October 7 attacks that sparked the conflict. The case against Deif was dropped in February after his death.
Israel, not one of the ICC’s 125 members, challenged the court’s jurisdiction but judges on the ICC’s “Pre-Trial Chamber” dismissed the bid and issued the arrest warrants.
But last month, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber ruled the Pre-Trial Chamber was wrong to dismiss the challenge and ordered it to look again in detail at Israel’s arguments.
Israel says now that the arrest warrants should not stay in place while this complex and lengthy process is ongoing.
“Unless and until the Pre-Trial Chamber has ruled on the substance of the jurisdiction challenge... the prerequisite jurisdictional finding does not exist,” Israel argued.
“It follows that the arrest warrants issued on 21 November 2024 must be withdrawn or vacated pending the Pre-Trial Chamber’s determination of Israel’s jurisdictional challenge.”
Israel and its allies reacted furiously to the warrants issued on November 21, Netanyahu describing it as an “anti-Semitic decision” and then US president Joe Biden slamming it as “outrageous.”
Technically, any member of the ICC is required to arrest Netanyahu if he travels there, although the court has no independent power to enforce warrants.
Israel argued in its submission that Netanyahu could theoretically be arrested while the court was still weighing whether it had jurisdiction in the case.
“Depriving persons of their liberty on the basis of an arrest warrant issued in the absence of the necessary legal pre-conditions is an egregious violation of fundamental human rights and of the rule of law,” Israel argued.
Allowing the warrants to stay in place during the deliberations “is unlawful and undermines the legitimacy of the court,” said Israel.