opinion
The Israel-Lebanon Maritime Border
Agreement Is a Defeat for Israel
BY ALEX NACHUMSON
Oleksii Liskonih / iStock / Getty Images Plus
“E nding wars is very simple if you surrender,”
said American political satirist P.J. O’Rourke.

It is a very true statement but lost on far too many
today. The Israeli government recently announced that
it has reached a historic agreement settling its mar-
itime border dispute with Lebanon. Prime Minister
Yair Lapid and other members of the ruling coa-
lition have tried to claim that the agreement is a
victory for Israel.

“This is a historic achievement that will strengthen
Israel’s security, inject billions into Israel’s economy
and ensure the stability of our northern border,”
Lapid said.

But we have to look at what led to the agreement
in order to understand whether it is truly a victory
or a surrender.

In 2013, the Karish oil field was discovered off
the coast of Israel in the Mediterranean Sea. It is
located in waters claimed by Israel but also partially
by Lebanon, though the Lebanese claim is largely
without merit.

In June 2022, the company that licensed the
field, Energean, brought a production vessel into
the field. The Lebanese government protested that
no action to develop the field should be under-
taken until U.S.-mediated negotiations — which
began in 2020 — on the exact location of the
maritime border between Israel and Lebanon had
been concluded.

The Lebanese government’s statements were
swiftly followed by action from the terror group
Hezbollah, which dominates Lebanon. It launched
drones toward Karish at the beginning of July. The
drones were shot down by the IDF, but Hezbollah
leader Hassan Nasrallah had made his point. “Our
eyes and missiles are locked on Karish,” he said.

The truth is, the dispute was less about Karish
and more about a nearby gas field called Qana,
which extends into the disputed maritime territory
and has been claimed by Lebanon. According
to numerous reports, in late June, Lebanese
President Michel Aoun had already agreed that the
field straddles a recognized maritime border and
the proceeds from its development should be split
between Israel and Lebanon.

This fair compromise came to an abrupt halt with
the Hezbollah drones and Nasrallah’s threats. Even
though these were not major actions and did not
harm a single person, they appear to have thrown
the Israeli government into a panic. Israel promptly
gave up any claims disputed by Lebanon, even
though these claims had already been recognized
as legitimate.

In other words, the Israeli government is claiming
that the maritime agreement is a victory because
Israel gained what was never in dispute and gave
up everything that was.

It is true that tensions between Israel and
Hezbollah appear to have been lowered due to
the agreement, but this means nothing more than
that a potential war has been averted because
Israel surrendered.

This provides a major boost to Hezbollah, which
will be seen as strong-arming Israel to the finish
line without making much of an effort. It will also
boost the Iranian proxy’s popularity at a time when
it was on the wane due to the economic situation
in Lebanon, for which Hezbollah has been partially
blamed. Israel’s concessions also make it look weak,
given that it seemingly snatched defeat from the
jaws of victory. If the president of Lebanon agreed
to divide Qana only a few days before the drone
incident, and the final agreement gives Qana
entirely to Lebanon, how can that possibly be seen
as anything other than a massive concession?
As former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David
Friedman tweeted in reaction to the proposed
agreement: “We spent years trying to broker a deal
between Israel and Lebanon on the disputed mari-
time 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.” One can certainly argue over the merits of the
deal, but there is no doubt that Israel had a strong
hand and folded anyway. In other words, Israel
capitulated to terrorist threats. It surrendered and
lost. This goes well beyond a simple maritime border
dispute. It will be understood by Hezbollah as proof
that it can get its way in any dispute with Israel,
and there are many, including the terror group’s
persistent territorial claims on the Golan Heights,
which are inside Israel’s sovereign borders.

Moreover, Hezbollah’s patrons in Iran will con-
clude that it is easy to force Israel to give up on its
interests. All it took was some unarmed drones and
Israel retreated. Iran will reinterpret Israeli political
and security leaders’ persistent threats against its
nuclear weapons program.

Let there be no mistake, Israel’s concession will
embolden Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, Islamic Jihad
and numerous other terrorist entities that are con-
stantly probing for Israel’s weaknesses. They will
see the agreement as an Israeli defeat.

Israel must seek ways to reverse this outcome, or
it could soon be facing far more serious threats. JE
IDF Maj. (Res.) Alex Nachumson is CEO of Mivtachi
Israel, an organization of former IDF officers, and
an adviser to the Israel Victory Project.

JEWISHEXPONENT.COM 13