A few weeks from now, American-mediated talks between Israel and Lebanon to resolve the ongoing dispute over their maritime border are supposed to begin in Naqoura, on the Lebanese side of the land border. This past year, the U.S. has dispatched four envoys to Israel and Lebanon (the last of whom was U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) in an attempt to persuade Israel and Lebanon to solve the issue themselves, with the hope of bolstering the central government in Beirut against the rogue Hezbollah. The launch of almost-direct talks between Israel and Lebanon is seen as a major coup for the Americans and we can say that Washington is restoring the influence in Lebanon that it briefly appeared to have lost.
The American achievement came following pressure on Lebanese President Michel Aoun, an ally of Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, and after Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who maintains close ties to Hezbollah, was convinced that it would be financially worthwhile for Lebanon to produce gas. Lebanese Prime Minister Said Hariri, who is noted for staying out of regional conflicts, also agreed to the talks as a way of goading Hezbollah over its involvement in Syria and face-offs with Israel, among other things. Lebanon's dragging economy is crying out for assistance; income from the offshore gas fields could help it out of the current crisis.
Contradictory reports are coming out of Israel and Lebanon about what will be negotiated in the upcoming talks. This means we must wait until the first session to determine what chances they have. Lebanon claims that it arranged with the U.S. for the maritime border to be discussed together with the dispute over the land border between the two countries, which involves 11 spots ranging from Rosh Hanikra on the west coast to Mount Hermon which Lebanon claims are "disputed." Israel, meanwhile, says that the talks will address the matter of the maritime border only. Based on past experience, Lebanon appears to be presenting an accurate picture of its agreement with the U.S., which is not being clear enough about its position and goes back and forth between announcing that both issues (the land and maritime borders) must be solved together, and announcing that the talks are about the border at sea and nothing else.
At any rate, the goal of the talks is to eradicate the two disputes between Israel and Lebanon and increase pressure on Hezbollah. By doing so, the U.S. is trying to bring Lebanon back under the tent of U.S. influence and knock out any base for Hezbollah's claims that it is protecting the interests of Lebanon against Israel. The scheduled talks will bring the U.S. closer to this goal.
The fact that Hezbollah hasn't reared up to torpedo the talks is more proof that it is losing strength inside Lebanon, even though it won a larger percentage of the vote in the parliamentary election that took place about a year ago.
It would be best for Israel if it took steps to arrive at a solution that would serve its interests on the matters of both its land and sea borders with Lebanon. This would then help increase the pressure on Hezbollah over "resistance" to Israel, an issue it exploits to expand its stock of illegal weapons, which put Lebanon as a whole at risk.
