Israel and its Arab neighbors have over the years signed various agreements that have been a win-win for both sides involving a small price for massive gains.
The Abraham Accords or the peace treaty with Jordan are two examples. This is not the case with the newly announced maritime border deal with Lebanon. First, this is not a bilateral treaty between two nations. It is merely a set of US-issued letters that Beirut and Jerusalem will get and then ratify respectively. The letters stipulate that each country would have to provide the UN with a map that details the newly agreed-upon border. Had Israel not been in the midst of an election campaign, there would hardly be any interest in this saga.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
11 years of dispute
Although it is much better to have this technical arrangement than have a potential conflagration, as the Israeli national security adviser said on Wednesday, "This is not a peace treaty and there is not going to be a bilateral signing." In light of that, the announcements by Prime Minister Yair Lapid and the Biden administration that this was somehow a historic breakthrough are just over the top.
The indirect agreement settles an 11-year dispute with Lebanon that was a spinoff of the 22-year quarrel over the international border that was triggered when Israel withdrew from South Lebanon. To resolve the maritime dispute with Lebanon, Israel agreed to all of Beirut's territorial claims. As such, it handed over a "triangle of disagreement" in the sea, creating a new border for the economic waters of both nations.
Israel also agreed to hand over some 10 square km (3.6 square miles) of its sovereign territorial waters. In return, Israel did not get Lebanese recognition of the border but an acknowledgment that this is the status-quo line. Thus, in a purely legal sense, the dispute was not officially resolved, although it is always better to have de facto recognition of a border than open hostilities.
Security interests trump everything
Prime Minister Yair Lapid and his predecessor Naftali Bennett set the priorities for the talks when they swore in the new government in 2021, making the security and economic aspects the over-arching theme. That's why Israel was willing to pay a premium by conceding territorial and economic waters, securing a Lebanese acceptance of the new boundary along with a sophisticated mechanism that allowed Israel to get royalties for the future development of gas fields north of the border.
The deal also pulls the carpet from underneath Hezbollah's feet, making its threats to use force sound hollow. This should reassure gas companies who seek to conduct gas exploration in the region. Moreover, by accepting the very talks between the two countries, Hassan Nasrallah was dealt a public relations blow, although one could question whether giving in to Lebanon's territorial demands was worth it.
The agreement also includes another concession: Israel agreed that if the Lebanese gas field known as Qana ultimately requires drilling south of the border, Israel would not oppose that. Such arrangements are very common in the energy market because the sovereignty over gas fields is determined where the actual gas lies, not the drilling point. This means that Lebanon will be using Israeli waters to extract gas under the auspices of a French company.
The deal has another loophole: It could pave the way for Iranian gas companies to set up shop just across from Israeli shores. Yes, the provisions stipulate that "a company under international sanctions" cannot conduct the drilling, but if Iran and the US restore the 2015 nuclear deal that would remove sanctions, this restriction would be lifted. It's unlikely Iran would use that opportunity, but the deal should have better addressed this threat.
Funds will not reach Hezbollah
The claim that money generated from this deal will somehow reach Hezbollah is a flat-out lie. Lebanon has been under sanctions make it very costly if it transfers money to terrorist organizations. Any single cent from the gas revenue that reaches the group will immediately trigger financial penalties on the government, and hence it is very unlikely we will see that. The US will continue to have the role of a kindergarten teacher in resolving any future disputes that could arise from the implementation of the deal: Both sides have pledged that they would relay information on any new discovery of gas or other natural resources in the area, and should this result in a new border dispute – the US will act as the arbitrator.
The bottom line is that this agreement – while far from bringing peace for Lebanon and Israel – creates two separate peace treaties with America. This is no small feat.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
