Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Work Hours
Monday to Friday: 7AM - 7PM
Weekend: 10AM - 5PM
“You are making history”. These are the words which the United States President Joe Biden recently used to praise the steps taken by Israel and Lebanon in reaching a deal for the demarcation of their respective maritime boundaries in the Eastern Mediterranean. A significant breakthrough has been, indeed, made by these two Middle Eastern countries whose history narrates the ebb and flow of their bilateral relations since their initial establishment. Even though still formally at war, both the Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid and the Lebanese President Michel Aoun warmly welcomed the mediation efforts of Washington that proved to be effective as the U.S. special energy envoy Amos J. Hochstein managed to successfully broker a draft of the mutual agreement on the maritime border dispute, after rounds of talks and meetings held with both parties. A potential normalization of their relations still remains to be seen, but a window of opportunity has noticeably been opened for the security and offshore energy exploration of the area.
The Qana and Karish gas fields have been the bone of contention between the State of Israel and the Republic of Lebanon for decades, with long-lasting effects that exacerbated their tense relationship as soon as the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement militarily entered the fray. Following the discovery of significant resources off the Israeli coast in 2010, the claims that both nations have been laying for establishing their separate maritime borders became a matter of major concern, and since then, negotiations had been repeatedly put off. It was in October 2020 that, following the explosions at the Port of Beirut, the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri announced the relaunch of indirect negotiations with Israel. However, in June 2022 Israel sent an exploration rig to the Karish gas field, which triggered Hezbollah to fly unarmed drones over the platform to warn Tel Aviv against the prospect of exploring the field and carrying out drilling activities without Lebanon’s consent. At this stage, the Israeli aircrafts shot the drones down and Hezbollah’s subsequent action threatened to cause an escalation which Lebanon tried to avoid, regardless.
As a matter of fact, in the wake of such developments Lebanon advanced a more practical suggestion in order to find a solution to the demarcation of the two countries’ respective exclusive economic zones. Although having previously insisted that Line 29 should have been used for demarcation, Lebanon ultimately accepted the Line 23 (see Figure 1) as the maritime border. It requested the ownership as well as the control of the Qana field which crosses the above-mentioned line into an area claimed by Israel and, at the same time, it recognized the Israeli sovereignty over the Karish field. After communicating the new Lebanese stance over the issue to Israel, Hochstein traveled to Paris for discussing the matter with the French multinational TotalEnergies as well, which has exploration rights in Lebanese waters. Whatever the situation, many other countries interested in the Eastern Mediterranean’s energy resources are keen for the maritime border to be established so that gas extraction operations could start in the contended region, especially in light of the current tough times worsened by the harsh effects stemming from the spiraling energy crisis.
Figure 1. Arab Center Washington DC, An Update on the Lebanon-Israel Border Dispute.
Starting with the case of Lebanon, the deal with Israel has been envisioned as a potential way to lift the Lebanese out of the three-year financial crisis that has left more than 80% of the population in poverty and caused the local currency to lose more than 95% of its value. In other words, the maritime deal with Israel is seen by Beirut as a chance to lay the foundation for the financial recovery of this economically stricken country by attracting foreign investment and, more importantly, by enhancing the access to energy sources, as most Lebanese citizens are still tackling daily electricity shortages. On the other side, besides being granted almost 17% of revenues from Lebanon’s Qana gas field, Israel is likely to boost its energy production by allowing for greater exports to Europe which owing its heavy reliance on one dominant energy supplier, has been severely impacted by the decreased flow resulting from the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Moreover, the accord allegedly became a politicized issue as well: Israel is in the midst of legislative elections which will be held on November 1 to elect the twenty-fifth Knesset members and the former PM Netanyahu, opposing the Lapid administration, has voiced skepticism over the matter.
A similar situation is witnessed in Lebanon too, which was complicated further due to Hezbollah’s quest for legitimacy among the Lebanese people following its loss of a parliamentary majority in the 2022 general elections. Here the Lebanese Parliament started to hold its sessions to choose Michel Aoun’s successor, as his term as president will definitely come to an end on October 31. To such implications, the potential involvement of other actors is added; in fact, if the French TotalEnergies does start seismic surveys and exploration drilling in the Lebanese territorial waters, it might also provide incentives for other companies to join. Qatar, for instance, already a massive player in the global energy market, has been attracted by the possibility of joint oil explorations not only with the French TotalEnergies but also with the Italian Eni, which had entered into Lebanese markets in 2018 by signing two agreements for offshore exploring. On October 14 the Lebanese government quoted Walid Fayyad, the Lebanese caretaker Energy Minister, as claiming that Qatar was interested in the oilfields situated in Blocks 4 and 9. Saad Al-Kaabi, Qatar’s Minister of State for Energy Affairs, reportedly stated the country’s willingness to participate in a consortium of companies to explore the area.
The conclusion can be drawn that the U.S. brokered maritime deal will assist in defusing the enduring tensions between Israel and Lebanon, lessening the likelihood of an embitterment of their current conflict in the near future. Despite the fact that the agreement does not constitute a peace treaty between the two nations, it nevertheless represents a noteworthy advancement because it expresses a sort of implicit recognition of the State of Israel by Lebanon. Reaching such an agreement has demonstrated that, even when peace cannot be achieved, significant progress can still be made through the power of diplomacy. There is still a lot of work to be done before the agreements struck between these two countries and the U.S. are deposited in the UN and receive final approval. Likewise, it will take a lot of work to ensure that both parties comply with the obligations deriving from the deal, also to enable other actors to get actively involved in the drilling operations. In any case, there are considerable signals that all of this might be feasible in the long term with the American efforts under the Biden administration, which aims at restoring order and stability in this particularly tense area of the Eastern Mediterranean.
