The emerging maritime agreement with Lebanon is good news. As it is with most deals, it is not perfect, but the alternative – a dangerous escalation on the northern border – would be much worse.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
It has three benefits. Firstly, because these are negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, albeit indirect and mediated by the United States. We should not underestimate the importance of an agreement, even if partial, with an enemy state at the heart of which is a terror organization currently posing the greatest threat to the Jewish state. The ability to generate and implement common interests is in its nature a calming and restraining element in a region where there is no shortage of factors that could spark a war.
Secondly, there is the economic aspect. Lebanon is a broken, insolvent country on the verge of anarchy, and the money it would gain from gas drilling would help it stabilize. The claim that the finances will be used for missile and rocket building is nonsense. Hezbollah does not finance its operations with Lebanese taxpayers' money, but rather with that of Iranian taxpayers. Besides, Hezbollah wants Lebanon to stabilize economically because it is continuously being accused of preventing such a recovery (and rightly so).
And the third benefit is energy. Israel could start producing gas from the Karish field immediately, and at a time when the world is hungry for natural gas and prices are increasing. It will do so without a physical threat to its rigs. The Lebanese rig, which will be placed opposite the Israeli one, will be a restraining factor as both countries will worry about losing valuable maritime assets. Lebanon will also get to reduce its energy dependence on Iran, and strengthen its ties with Western European countries.
However, the main disadvantage of the deal is the possible loss of maritime assets. It is not a border, because the territory in dispute is outside the sovereign territory of Israel, but in the territory where it has "special rights."
Theoretically, had Israel wanted to, it could have also drilled in more extensive areas and extracted gas (and money) from them as well, but that would be a considerable risk for an escalation (and in any case, it will be financially compensated by Lebanon for gas produced from "Israeli" territory). In other words, Israel has made a tactical concession for a strategic gain of stability on the northern border.
Assuming the agreement is signed, Israel must make sure to let Hezbollah know that it wasn't its threats that brought about the results. There are several points of contention between Israel and Lebanon on the land border, which the terror group may exploit to keep its threats in the air. Its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, sounded more conciliatory than ever in his speech the other day, but he will not hesitate to come back and challenge Israel if he senses weakness on its part.
The emerging deal is the culmination of negotiations going back to the days of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister and Yuval Stienitz as energy minister. As such, Netanyahu's harsh criticism of the draft is puzzling, to say the least.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
As mentioned above, it is not a matter of giving up sovereign territory. And the claim that Hezbollah will use the money for itself is ridiculous coming from the mouth of someone during whose tenure the terror group gained thousands of missiles, rockets, and other advanced military equipment. And last but not least, the agreement would ensure stability on the northern border, a distinct Israeli interest that Netanyahu – when it power – put above all.
But worst of all is the statement that should the Likud come to power, it will not be bound by the agreement. In democratic Israel, there is no governmental continuity that would ensure that each government is bound by the agreements reached by its predecessor.
Netanyahu knows this very well, and will not cancel this agreement, just as he did not cancel the Oslo Accords. His statements on the subject are not only outrageous, but above all dangerous: canceling the deal would mean much greater potential for escalation, and possibly even war, on the northern border. It is doubtful whether this is the news that the Israeli public longs to hear.
