The dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the line demarcating each country's economic waters has been going on for 11 years. In 2011, both submitted to the United Nations their respective views of where the border should run. For Lebanon, this was the second such proposal, having submitted the first draft some two years earlier when it finalized a separate border with Cyprus.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Israel's proposal effectively adopted the line proposed by Lebanon in its deal with Cyprus and incorporated the Lebanese line (Line 1) into its own proposal to the UN. Thus, Israel effectively chose its northern border according to the first proposal Lebanon had submitted. That's why Jerusalem was surprised when, several months later, Lebanon submitted its second proposal to the UN. It included a new line, that runs south of the line from its first proposal. It ultimately became known as Line 23.

Both lines originate from the same overland point: the westernmost point of the land border between Israel and Lebanon in Naqoura. But the more Line 23 continued seaward, its distances from Line 1 increased, resulting in a triangle gap with a surface area of 332 square miles. This is now the heart of the dispute between the countries.

Underwater surveys conducted since have shown that this triangle of contention has potential gas known as the Qana Prospect. Most of the reservoir lies, according to all assessments, on the Lebanese side of the northern lines. In light of this low likelihood of extracting any economic value from that reservoir, experts advised the Israeli decision-makers to show flexibility toward Lebanon if the talks materialize.

Some 9 years passed, and Israel – despite a heated debate – developed a marvelous gas industry (kudos to former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his energy minister, Yuval Steinitz). Lebanon, on the other hand, went in the complete opposite direction. Its social disintegration only intensified, and its gas exploration efforts never took off.

In the years since mediation efforts were launched in the hopes of resolving this dispute and in the process also creating a new stable source of energy that would boost their economy. But the puppet Lebanese governments all said no, until 2020, toward the end of President Donald Trump's term in office, as well as months before Netanyahu was to be ousted as well. The Lebanese shift was prompted by the fact that the country was teetering on collapse.

The long road toward a deal

Just as Netanyahu and Trump were about to leave office, Lebanon started drafting new proposals. But it turned out that Lebanon was not willing to compromise and even replicated its trickery from a decade earlier – proposing another line that goes even further south, Line 29. This line would incorporate another 580 square miles, including the point where the Israeli gas drilling barge for the Karish reservoir would eventually dock

Israel decided to respond in kind. Steinitz instructed the negotiating team to draw a new proposed line that goes even north of Line 1. The talks continued but did not go anywhere. According to one source, "at no point could anyone entertain the thought that the entire area in dispute would be conceded. There was a willingness to give 60% to Lebanon while keeping 40%, but nothing beyond that. We had a vested interest in Lebanon having a stable energy source and that the country does not disintegrate."

Q: Why would Israel have such an interest? Hezbollah controls the country and may even fill its coffers from the gas revenues. 

"I don't know if Hezbollah is going to earn anything, but despite the disadvantages, Israel would be best served by having the Lebanese government – however weak – continue to function rather than have the country face total collapse.

The former US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, also criticized the reported Israeli concessions. "We spent years trying to broker a deal between Israel and Lebanon on the disputed maritime gas fields. Got very close with proposed splits of 55-60% for Lebanon and 45-40% for Israel. No one then imagined 100% to Lebanon and 0% to Israel. Would love to understand how we got here," he tweeted.

An Israeli source confirmed that there was a principled stand in the talks [during Netanyahu's term] that Israel would not concede 100% of the disputed area.

"Giving up everything would have served as a dangerous precedent for other maritime border issues, such as the Israeli-Cypriot disagreements over control of the Aphrodite-Yishai field and the future of the gas in the Gaza Marine off the coast of Ashkelon," the source said. "Giving Lebanon everything sends a very negative signal to our other neighbors. They could now come with demands for total Israeli capitulation so that they get what Lebanon got."

Apart from what appears to be a total capitulation on the Israeli side, it may have been made without securing anything in return, although in recent days the Lebanese have claimed that Israel would get a share of the revenue if gas if found in the Lebanese gas field (the Qana Prospect) through the French drilling company. It is also unclear if Israel will get what it wanted in terms of the security arrangements and the actual signing of the deal and international recognition of the border. As of early October, it was not entirely clear what Lebanon would be giving Israel in return for its concessions.

There are also legal pitfalls. Justice Minister Gideon Sa'ar has successfully stifled Lapid's effort to bypass the Knesset and have the deal secretly approved in the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet. Thus, the deal will undergo Knesset scrutiny (but not necessarily a vote). Likewise, the High Court of Justice heard arguments against the deal's rushed approval process and instructed the state to explain its legal procedure for ratifying the deal and why it should not merit a national referendum (under Israeli law handing over sovereign territory automatically triggers a plebiscite).

With these obstacles, it is far from certain that Lapid can have the deal approved in Israel before the Nov.1 election. One should also ask why the US mediators had the deal finalized in this sensitive period just before the vote. The Trump White House put on hold its "Peace to Prosperity" plan on regional peace for about a year in 2019-2020 because it wanted to avoid the perception that it was meddling in Israel's political democratic process. Shouldn't have Biden done the same?

Whether or not the Israelis and Lebanese governments ink a deal, the real problem lies somewhere else: Hezbollah. The organization has already warned that it could attack the Israeli (Karish) gas field if gas get extracted before a suitable deal is reached (as of October 10, it was still unclear what Hezbollah's official stance on the newly announced deal between the sides). Lapid and Defense Minister Benny Gantz have warned that they would not be beholden to Hezbollah and that the extraction will take place as soon as is technically possible.

The way Lapid has conducted himself on this issue is problematic any way you look at it: If a deal becomes official, this would send a message that Hezbollah managed to spook Israel into giving up all of its original demands; if no deal is reached and no extraction takes place in Karish, this would embarrass Lapid as having paid for a meal that ultimately left him hungry; if after all this,  hostilities break between the sides, Churchill's adage will come true: "The government had to choose between war and shame. They chose shame. They will get war too."

What's abundantly clear is that in terms of handling the Lebanese issues – as well as relations with the EU – Lapid has taken vastly different views from Netanyahu. It is an actual difference that anyone can compare, not just spin and slogans.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post A deal with unanswered questions, uncertain approval appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Lebanon said US-brokered talks to demarcate its maritime border near the disputed gas field Karish with Israel were at a "make or break" point on Thursday after Israel rejected revisions to a draft deal requested by Beirut, throwing years of diplomatic efforts into doubt. In light of the apparent breakdown of talks, Defense Minister Benny Gantz instructed the IDF this week to prepare for a possible flare-up on the Lebanese front, with terrorist group Hezbollah warning it could hit Israel if it extracts gas from the field, which is entirely under Israel's economic waters.

The draft, which has not been made public, had a warm preliminary reception from the Israeli and Lebanese governments. But amid domestic opposition in both countries, Lebanon on Tuesday sought amendments from the US envoy.

On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid "was updated on the details of the substantial changes Lebanon is seeking to make and instructed the negotiating team to reject them", an Israeli official said. Lapid convened the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet on Thursday and the meeting concluded with the ministers empowering him and Gantz to make the necessary decisions in extreme cases should the security situation surrounding this standoff deteriorate.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

A spokesperson for the US Embassy in Israel said the parties were "at a critical stage in the negotiations and the gaps have narrowed." According to Israeli media, a main sticking point was over recognition of a line of demarcation buoys Israel has strung out to sea from its coast. Lebanon worries about any action that may connote formal acceptance of a shared land border.

Lebanon – which has never recognized the state of Israel, with any broader peace deal beyond the horizon – has also said Israel will earn no royalties from the Lebanese share of gas in the nearby Qana prospect, which under the proposed deal would have Lebanon operate but share with Israel part of the revenue to the would-be change of border demarcations.

Top Lebanese negotiator Elias Bou Saab told Reuters on Thursday that he would only respond to official statements and not to media reports on Israel's stance. He said the deal "is 90% done but the remaining 10% could make it or break it," adding that he was in constant contact with US mediator Amos Hochstein.

Israel has been preparing to activate a gas rig, Karish, which is outside Qana. Lebanon's Iran-backed Hezbollah made veiled threats about Karish that lent urgency to the talks. Israel previously presented the draft deal with Lebanon, if finalized, as securing Karish. But on Thursday, it changed tack.

Israel is now pressing ahead with Karish, regardless of progress or no progress in the talks, whereas before it cast a successful deal as a means of securing Karish." Israel will produce gas from the Karish rig as soon as it is possible to do so," the Israeli official said, adding that negotiations will "stop immediately" in the face of any threats.

Gantz further hardened the tone, saying in a speech that "Lebanon will bear a heavy military price" if Hezbollah attacks. There was no immediate response from Hezbollah.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Gantz instructs IDF to prepare for escalation as Lebanese gas deal hits snag appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Israeli decision to all but endorse a US plan to redraw the maritime border between Lebanon and Israel near the disputed gas fields of Karish and Qana has drawn heavy criticism from the Israeli Right, as well as from its allies in the US. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Former US Ambassador to Israel under Donald Trump lamented Monday that this was a squandered opportunity that put to waste years of hard work. 

"We spent years trying to broker a deal between Israel and Lebanon on the disputed maritime gas fields. Got very close with proposed splits of 55-60% for Lebanon and 45-40% for Israel. No one then imagined 100% to Lebanon and 0% to Israel. Would love to understand how we got here," Friedman tweeted. 

Republican Senator Ted Cruz also voiced his concern over the US plan, alleging that White House had Israel capitulate to Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah

"I am deeply troubled that Biden officials pressured our Israeli allies to hand over their territory to the Iran-controlled terrorist group Hezbollah. Another topic for the next Republican Congress to investigate," he tweeted.

The emerging deal, which still needs official signature and approval by Israeli and Lebanese authorities, would have Israel concede some of the economic waters it currently controls, in exchange for royalties stemming from potential gas discoveries north of the border. Hezbollah has repeatedly warned it might strike Israeli facilities in the area if the border dispute is not resolved, although it is unclear if the terrorist group will accept the new deal. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Former Trump official says gas deal gives '100% to Lebanon and 0% to Israel' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel gave its preliminary nod on Sunday to a draft US-brokered deal demarcating a maritime border with Lebanon that could lead to possible profit-sharing from future gas production by Beirut in a long-disputed Mediterranean prospect, triggering a political debate just a month before Israel heads to the polls.

Hoping to defuse one source of conflict between the enemy countries and perhaps prod them toward accommodation, US. envoy Amos Hochstein last week submitted a new proposal that would pave the way for offshore energy exploration.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Beirut is studying the 10-page draft, details of which have not been made public. Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah, which has clashed with Israel and previously voiced suspicions over any demarcation deal, called the draft "a very important step".

Israeli approval of the draft awaited legal review, Prime Minister Yair Lapid told his cabinet at its weekly session. "But," he said in televised remarks, "just as we insisted from day one, the proposal fully preserves Israel's national security interests, as well as our economic interests".

Lapid appeared to float an arrangement whereby gas would be produced by a company under a Lebanese license in the disputed Qana prospect, with Israel receiving a share of revenues.

"We have no opposition to an additional Lebanese gas field being developed, from which we would of course receive royalties due us," he said. "Such a field would weaken Lebanese dependency on Iran, restrain Hezbollah and bring regional stability."

Lapid heads a caretaker government ahead of a Nov 1 election. His challenger, conservative ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has argued the Lebanese deal could benefit Hezbollah, and accused Lapid of evading parliamentary scrutiny. "Lapid is making a humiliating surrender to [Hezbollah chief] Hassan Nasrallah," Netanyahu said on Sunday., "He is doing this without a referendum or a Knesset debate; he is giving away sovereign areas with a massive gas field – which belongs to you, the Israelis." Netanyahu went on to say that if Lapid manages to "pull a fast one" by approving this without triggering a national referendum, we won't consider it binding.

Gideon Saar, Lapid's justice minister, acknowledged that such deals would generally be brought before the Knesset. However, Saar told Kan radio, "there are exceptional cases where – and this requires the agreement of the justice minister – there is an exemption from the mandatory submission. I do not want to be drawn on this until we understand matters fully."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Netanyahu: Emerging gas deal with Lebanon may not be binding appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israeli negotiators tasked with resolving the ongoing dispute with Lebanon on the maritime border near the Israeli gas field Karish have been exploring the possibility of having the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet hold a secret vote on any final deal before it is presented to the public, Israel Hayom has learned from sources who are close to the negotiations.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Under official government procedures, an international agreement with a foreign country must be submitted for to Knesset by the relevant cabinet minister for a two-week review process, after which the government holds a vote on it. However, in rare instances, the rules provide for a mechanism that allows that minister to withhold this information from the general public and instead submit it to the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet without having the Knesset review it or the full government ministerial panel vote on it.

The rules stipulate that "the prime minister may decide that there are special circumstances involving national security of foreign relations that require an international treaty be presented to the ministerial committee for national security [the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet] rather than the government."

The sources told Israel Hayom that government officials are also considering redefining the negotiations on the maritime border between Israel and Lebanon so that they would determine the "marking of a border" rather than the "setting a border" in order to avoid triggering the relevant law that would require a national referendum on changing that status of Israel's sovereignty in areas under its control.

The talks between Israel and Lebanon over the border that would define the economic waters of each side are held under the auspices of an American mediator. Israeli and US officials have confirmed in recent days that an agreement is close and that it would likely have Israel drop a significant part of its demands regarding the exact delineation it had proposed. This would let Lebanon have a major part of another potential gas field in the disputed area.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon, who is expected to be elected to the Knesset as part of the Likud candidate list in the Nov. 1 election, told Israel Hayom that Prime Minister Yair Lapid's approach to the negotiations is tantamount to an "instrument of surrender to Hezbollah." According to Danon, "Lapid knows that Israelis do not support him on this, and that is why he has been trying to secretly push an agreement using legal maneuvers with unprecedented measures that would bypass the Knesset and the public. We could wake up one day and discover that Lapid had already signed a deal with Lebanon, handed over a gas field worth billions of dollars, and set a dangerous precedent for future negotiations on Israel's maritime borders. Lapid must stop now and avoid this shameful surrender; a Likud-led government will be engaged on this matter only with public legitimacy."

The Prime Minister's Office told Israel Hayom in response to the report that "there is no confirmation on this information because at this point there is no agreement; when we have updates we will provide them."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Sources: Lapid might bypass Knesset by holding secret vote on border deal with Lebanon appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.