Dr. Hassan Marhej: The future of the maritime border demarcation agreement between Lebanon and Israel is linked to field developments in Lebanon

And the area

Kamal Tarabieh: It is not clear why Israel threatens to cancel the gas agreement while it benefits from the "Karish" field, while Lebanon has not achieved any gains.

Nizar Abdel Qader: Canceling or amending the maritime agreement between Lebanon and Israel is hasty talk and is not based on any realistic legal basis

Wadih Abu Nassar: The Israeli force will not be able to impose new conditions, especially since Hezbollah is still very far from collapse

Dr. Munther Hawarat: The Israeli government seeks to undermine the border demarcation agreement with Lebanon based on new balances of power

The strikes that the Israeli occupation state has succeeded in directing against Hezbollah recently, the latest and most important of which was its ability to assassinate the party’s Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, created a state of euphoria among the occupiers, and made them believe that they had struck a fatal blow to Hezbollah’s power, and thus the absence of the force that was deterring them and preventing them from implementing their aggressive plans against Lebanon and its capabilities.

Before the course of events in Lebanon became clear, and before it became clear how Hezbollah would reorganize its situation, including choosing a new Secretary-General, and how that would be linked to the battlefield, Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen was quick to hint at the possibility of canceling the gas agreement signed with Lebanon under American sponsorship, describing the agreement as “scandalous,” and confirming that he was looking for a loophole to cancel it.

Cohen considered that the gas agreement signed by Israel with Lebanon, under the change government headed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, "was a mistake from the beginning, and we will make sure to fix it."

Lebanon and Israel signed an agreement in late 2022 to demarcate the maritime borders between the two countries after two years of indirect negotiations mediated by the United States regarding an area rich in oil and natural gas in the Mediterranean Sea covering an area of 860 square kilometers.

Renegotiation of maritime boundary demarcation

Dr. Hassan Marhej, an expert in Middle East affairs, discussed the future of the maritime border demarcation agreement between Lebanon and Israel, stressing that Israel may move towards canceling this agreement, which was signed in October 2022, under American sponsorship. The agreement allowed Lebanon to extract gas from the Qana field, while Israel continued to extract gas from the Karish field.

Marhej explained to “Ya” that “Israel is still producing large quantities of gas from the Karish field, while Total announced after exploration operations in the Lebanese fields that there is not enough gas in those areas. This announcement led to the cessation of any activity related to exploration or extraction of gas in Lebanon, which made the Israelis see that reaching this agreement came under threat from the Lebanese resistance, and they are strengthening their position to evade it or renegotiate it under new conditions.”

He pointed out that many members of the US Congress are encouraging Israel to withdraw from this agreement, especially since the nuclear agreement with Iran, which the United States sponsored in 2015, was withdrawn from by former US President Donald Trump in 2018, without European countries being able to force Washington to abide by it. This means, according to Marhej, that Israel may find similar US support for its renunciation of the maritime border demarcation agreement with Lebanon, also citing Israel’s disregard for the Oslo Accords, which have become a “dead agreement” due to continued Israeli violations.

Israel's latest strikes strengthen its negotiating position

He continued: The recent Israeli military operations, including the assassination of a number of Hezbollah leaders, most notably the party’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, may make Israel more bold in seeking to renegotiate the maritime border demarcation in line with its interests. The successful military operations and airstrikes that Israel has launched recently strengthen its negotiating position and provide it with an opportunity to dictate new terms to Lebanon, according to what Marah indicated.

Marhej added: “Israel may not be satisfied with demarcating the maritime borders only, but may move towards imposing a large buffer zone extending beyond the Litani River. Israel believes that its geographical expansion, whether in Lebanese territory or in the Palestinian areas, serves its security and demographic interests in light of the expansion of settlements and the deployment of Israeli military forces in the border areas.”

On the other hand, Marhej stressed that the Lebanese resistance, as stated by Hezbollah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem yesterday, is in a state of "full readiness" for any potential confrontation, noting that the field battle is what will determine the future of any new agreements.

The winner on the field imposes his conditions.

He said: "The military force and resistance on the ground may be the decisive factor in changing the American-backed Israeli plans, whether in the issue of demarcating the maritime or land borders."

He predicted that "Israel may resort to canceling the agreement entirely if it continues to achieve military and political successes. If the Lebanese resistance succeeds in restoring the balance of power, the agreement may be amended or renegotiated on a new basis that serves Lebanon's interests. But if the resistance fails to achieve field achievements, Israel may be able to impose its terms in full, including nibbling away at more land or controlling gas resources in the region."

Marhej explained that the United States could play a major role in shaping the future of any new agreements, whether in Lebanon or the Palestinian issue. He also indicated that Israel could benefit from American support and international pressure to formulate settlements in which it imposes its terms without making major concessions.

He concluded by stressing that the future of the maritime border demarcation agreement between Lebanon and Israel is largely dependent on field developments in Lebanon and the region, and that Israel may resort to cancelling this agreement if it continues to achieve military successes, while the Lebanese resistance may seek to amend the agreement or impose new conditions if it is able to achieve field victories.

Unclear Israeli threat

In a statement to “I”, Lebanese media figure and researcher in Arab and European affairs Kamal Tarabieh commented on the statements of the Israeli Minister of Energy regarding Israel’s threat to cancel the gas agreement with Lebanon, saying: “These statements are not clear.”

He pointed out that there is great ambiguity surrounding this threat, and that the Israeli statements are not understandable, especially since the agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel with American mediation is of great benefit to Israel, while Lebanon has not yet benefited from any amount of gas.

Tarabieh explained that Israel is fully benefiting from the gas discovered in the Karish field, and is exporting it to Europe, where it has become a major exporter of natural gas in the Mediterranean region, while Lebanon is still waiting to achieve any benefit from the agreement.

He added: The French company "Total Energy", which is conducting exploration operations in the "Qana" field (Block No. 9) inside Lebanese waters, announced after exploration that it did not find any commercial quantities of gas in the field, which raised questions about the reason for the presence of gas in the "Karish" field and its absence in "Qana", despite the proximity of the two fields to each other.

Insufficient quantities of gas in the Lebanese Qana field!

Tarabieh wondered about the existence of a barrier under the sea that might prevent the gas from moving to Lebanese waters, noting that this seems strange. He explained that the agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel gives Israel the right to fully benefit from the gas, while Lebanon has not benefited from any resources so far.

Regarding the agreement itself, the Lebanese media figure stated that the agreement granted Israel an area estimated at about 3,000 square kilometers of territorial waters, after adopting Line 23 instead of Line 29, which was supposed to grant Lebanon a larger area.

He explained that Line 29 was based on the starting point of Ras al-Naqoura, based on the 1982 maritime border agreement, while Line 23 started from a point about 30 metres from Lebanese territory, which caused Lebanon to lose a large area.

Commenting on the Israeli Energy Minister's threats to cancel the agreement, Tarabieh stressed that Israel is still fully benefiting from the gas in the Karish field, while Lebanon has not begun to exploit its resources due to the halt of exploration operations in the Lebanese gas fields.

Implicit approval from Hezbollah

He added that the agreement was made with the implicit approval of Hezbollah, which refrained from directing any missiles towards the Karish field, despite its ability to do so.

Tarabieh explained that Hezbollah could have launched strikes on the Karish field and halted gas production, but it did not, allowing Israel to continue its operations. He wondered about the reasons that prompted Israel to threaten to cancel the agreement, despite the fact that it benefits greatly from it.

Tarabieh stressed that the Israeli position seems unjustified in light of the current situation, especially since Lebanon has not achieved any gains from the agreement yet, while Israel continues to produce and export gas regularly.

Tarabieh called for exploring what lies behind these Israeli threats and whether they aim to impose a new agreement with different terms.

The agreement was accepted by Lebanon and Israel under American sponsorship.

Retired strategic expert Nizar Abdel Qader from Lebanon told Al-Monitor: “Talk about canceling or amending the maritime agreement between Lebanon and Israel regarding an area rich in oil and natural gas in the Mediterranean is ‘hasty talk and is not based on any realistic legal basis.’”

Abdul Qader stressed that the agreement was signed under American sponsorship on the one hand, and on the other hand, it was accepted by Lebanon and Israel as well, and that any attempt to cancel or retract it by Israel will not be successful from a legal or international perspective.

He added that this issue could reach the United Nations or the Security Council if Israel backs out of the agreement.

He pointed out that following the signing of the agreement, Lebanon has already begun drilling operations in the maritime economic zone, and there are legal obligations not only with the Lebanese state, but also with international companies that have interests and enjoy the support of major countries.

Abdul Qader pointed out that imposing force cannot change the equations related to international rights, and that resorting to force will turn the issue into a long conflict similar to the occupation of the lands of other countries by countries, which may negatively affect peace and stability in the region.

Abdul Qader stressed that the cancellation of the maritime agreement, which was reached after years of negotiations under the auspices of the United States and with the consent of both parties, is far from reality, as neither party was forced to sign, but rather signed it based on their interests, as confirmed by the American envoy, Amos Hochstein.

Changing regional equations with military force

In turn, Wadih Abu Nassar, a political analyst specializing in Israeli affairs, told “Ya”: There is talk in Israel about the ability of military force to change regional equations, especially with regard to the relationship with Lebanon.

He pointed out that there is an Israeli perception that the possibility of Hezbollah retreating behind the Litani River may create great opportunities to demarcate the land and sea borders between the two countries.

Abu Nassar added that Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen believes that Hezbollah "blackmailed" the previous Israeli government headed by Lapid and Bennett, forcing it to partially give up some of its demands regarding offshore gas rights.

Despite the successive Israeli military strikes, Abu Nassar explained that it is too early to talk about Hezbollah’s collapse or its retreat from its demands.

He added: "The biggest problem lies in the expected American role, noting that the current American administration does not seem ready to support Israeli demands regarding gas rights." However, Abu Nassar expected that there would be a new formula through which the American administration would try to address the border disputes between Israel and Lebanon.

He wondered whether this war would continue until a new American administration, perhaps a Republican one, came along that could support the Israeli position more.

However, Abu Nassar ruled out that the Israeli military force alone would be able to impose new conditions, especially since Hezbollah is still very far from collapse.

Israeli belief in changing balance of power

For his part, Jordanian political analyst Dr. Munther Hawarat said in a statement to “Y”: Israel has come to see that the balance of power in the region has changed radically in its favor, which is pushing it to seek to cancel the maritime border demarcation agreement with Lebanon that was reached earlier.

Hawarat added: "Israel now wants to conclude a new agreement that is in line with the current balance of power, which is completely in its favor, without the need for international mediators as happened in the previous agreement."

The Jordanian analyst added: "In this context, Israel prefers that military and field power be the main factor in any future agreement."