In recent days, many media outlets have rushed to publish “sensational reports” that Lebanon and Israel have reached an agreement on the demarcation of the maritime border. Of course, the US and Israeli media have been particularly active in publishing such information, presenting it as almost “the undoubted historic result of years of US-mediated negotiations.”
According to Lebanese media reports, there has already been a telephone conversation between the US and Lebanese Presidents in which Joe Biden congratulated Michel Aoun on the successful conclusion of negotiations with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid also announced in a rousing tone that a historic agreement has been reached to demarcate the disputed maritime border between the two states after years of negotiations, stressing that the deal marked a compromise between states with a history of war and hostility, opening the way for offshore energy exploration and easing a source of recent tension. “This is a historic achievement that will strengthen Israel’s security, inject billions into Israel’s economy, and ensure the stability of our northern border,” Yair Lapid said in a statement.
Lebanese President Michel Aoun also said that the terms of the final US offer were satisfactory and hoped that a deal would be announced as soon as possible. On October 9, the Lebanese presidential administration said it had received the final version of the document from US mediator Amos Hochstein, which is scheduled to be signed on October 20. It is stressed that the agreement is meant to resolve a territorial dispute in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in an area where Lebanon intends to explore natural gas reserves and Israel already produces natural gas in nearby fields.
Negotiations to determine the land and maritime border between Lebanon and Israel have been under way in the Naqoura settlement in southern Lebanon since 1996, based on a memorandum of understanding under UN auspices and with US mediation.
As recently as a week ago, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid responded to Lebanon’s new comments on the maritime border demarcation agreement by demanding that the negotiating team reject them. He made it clear that Israel “will not compromise its security and economic interests in any way, even if it means that there will be no agreement soon.”
On October 5, the Lebanese leadership also, according to Al Akhbar, disagreed with several clauses of a proposed US draft agreement on the demarcation of maritime borders between Lebanon and Israel. It opposed in particular the establishment of a maritime security zone to be under Israeli control and refused to recognize the so-called “line of buoys,” the maritime border unilaterally established by Israel in 2000.
Meanwhile, as early as August the Israeli political and military cabinet was ready to turn the maritime border dispute with Lebanon into another protracted war if it was not resolved peacefully. The situation was also exacerbated by Hezbollah drone activity near the disputed fields, and Israel warned its neighbor of the risks that the situation could spiral out of control. For instance, Israeli media reported that Aviv Kochavi, Chief of General Staff, warned members of the government that the situation could enter an unstable phase and go beyond a limited exchange of missile strikes. Because, according to Kochavi, for Hasan Nasrallah, leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah group, the issue of fighting over the disputed waters is yet another way to mobilize his followers.
Israeli Minister of Finance Avigdor Lieberman, formerly head of the Ministry of Defense, has also issued belligerent warnings: “We will let Hassan Nasrallah know in the most unequivocal way possible: if he wants to strike at the Karish gas production platform in the Eastern Mediterranean, there will be no limited exchange of strikes. We will simply wipe part of Beirut off the face of the earth.”
As for further recognition of the agreement by the parties, it is still very difficult for Israel to determine the fate of the recent agreements reached. This is particularly because any question of border demarcation and delimitation with Lebanon must be submitted to a national referendum, since the Jewish state law requires that an agreement that changes the contours of a jurisdiction must be approved by a popular vote. Even though the disputed stretch of maritime territory is outside Israeli territorial waters, Israeli law applies. And this circumstance could complicate the very procedure of approval and recognition of the agreements with Lebanon.
In addition, Lebanon itself may experience some difficulties in approving the agreement on the demarcation of the border between Lebanon and Israel. Lebanon has not been able to form a government for a long time due to internal political contradictions, which significantly aggravates the already serious economic and political crisis. It should also not be forgotten that the Lebanese parliament failed at the end of September to agree on a new president to succeed the current head of state, Michel Aoun, whose official term expires on October 31. In May, Hezbollah lost its majority in Lebanon’s parliamentary elections, with the vote revealing no clear leader in parliament.
Without waiting for the authorities of the two countries to formally recognize the agreements reached on the border demarcation agreement, Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati has asked the oil and gas company TotalEnergies to immediately begin exploration “in Lebanese territorial waters.” In this connection, Mikati met with a delegation from the French company and acting Minister of Energy Walid Fayad. According to Fayad, thanks to the activities of the French oil and gas company TotalEnergies, Lebanon can join the list of oil-producing countries.
It should be recalled that the maritime dispute over the rich waters off the coast of Lebanon bordering Israel escalated significantly after the discovery of gas fields in the Mediterranean and the interest of both countries in maximizing the economic benefits of gas production. Earlier attempts at mediation have so far been unsuccessful, although during negotiations in 2011-2012 Israel agreed to a compromise that gave most (55:45 ratio) of the disputed territory (860 sq.km) to Lebanon. Lebanon did not respond to this concession at the time.
As for the current agreement, it is mainly due to Lebanon’s difficult economic situation and requires, no doubt, the consent of Hezbollah, which also faces financial difficulties and expects its share of the gas production dividend.
In general, the agreement could facilitate the consideration of quadripartite cooperation between Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus and Egypt to promote a regional gas transport system from the Eastern Mediterranean to Europe. Beyond the economic benefits, however, the agreement between the countries may have other definite positive consequences, yet today it is still an open question whether the agreement will provide an incentive for Hezbollah to maintain calm along the border with Israel over time.
Vladimir Odintsov, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
