Now everyone rolls over themselves with praise and congratulations. From the highest vantage point in Washington, US President Joe Biden has hailed the agreement on a maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon as a “historic breakthrough in the Middle East”. Even in far-off Berlin, a “historical success” is invoked. Joy and relief can be felt in the participating countries themselves, and Israel’s Prime Minister Jair Lapid also speaks of a “historic achievement”. But the fact that there are always two sides to history is shown by the reaction of opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu: he complains about a “historic capitulation” – and wants to put up a few more hurdles before the agreement is signed.
To classify beyond the big words: The agreement between Israel and Lebanon is far from a peace agreement between these two states, which have officially been at war since 1948. Agreement was reached – in indirect negotiations mediated by the US – on an economic issue that should also bring security policy benefits: After many years of dispute over a total area of 860 square kilometers in the Mediterranean, it has now been determined at what angle the border should be separated from the coast comes off
This is particularly significant because the long-disputed area borders two gas fields: one called Karish on the Israeli side; a second called Kana, which is now open to exploitation by the Lebanese. Israeli gas can now be extracted very quickly, giving the country scope for exports to Europe. Against the background of the Ukraine war, this is probably one of the reasons why the USA exerted great pressure to conclude the agreement.
The size of the field is still unclear
On the Lebanese side, it will certainly be a few more years before the French company Total has explored and developed the Kana field as a licensee. It is not even clear whether really large amounts of gas are to be expected. But amidst Lebanon’s devastating economic and energy crisis, the deal is a message of hope for citizens. The fact that Lebanon does not drift further towards chaos is also important for its neighbors, which is why Defense Minister Benny Gantz now specifically emphasized: “Israel has an interest in a stable and prosperous Lebanon.”
Israel’s hopes are aimed at two effects: First, Lebanon is to become independent of Iranian energy supplies, thereby reducing Iranian influence. This could also weaken Tehran’s rear occupants in Lebanon, the Shia Hezbollah militia. On the other hand, Israel is banking on a kind of balance of terror for the future: if two production facilities are active in the Mediterranean on the Israeli and Lebanese side in the immediate vicinity, both sides have an equal amount to lose in a military conflict.
This is the basis of Premier Lapid’s assessment that this agreement will improve regional security. The alternative scenario had been presented in recent months by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah with threats of war and drones shot down by the Israeli army near the Karish field.
Nevertheless, the agreement in Israel is not without controversy. Numerous commentators in the media pointed to an “overhasty process” and allegedly excessive concessions to Lebanon. And louder than anyone else, Netanyahu once again banged the drum, warning of “tens of billions of shekels” that would flow straight into Nasrallah’s pockets as a result of this deal. Before the parliamentary elections on November 1, he doesn’t want to grant the government any success – and is therefore trying to prevent a quick signing. One lever for this is the Supreme Court, where several petitions have already been submitted to stop the agreement.
The government, on the other hand, is now trying to speed things up. On Thursday, first the security cabinet assembled by Lapid and then the entire government voted to sign the agreement. At the same time, in the middle of the Feast of Tabernacles vacation, the Knesset was convened for a special session. The opposition is vehemently demanding a vote on the agreement with Lebanon. According to the government, which no longer has a majority in parliament, MPs should only have two weeks to view the text and formulate non-binding objections.