Sunday, December 22, 2024
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Get the Daily
Briefing by Email

Subscribe

Maritime Agreement: A Tactical Concession for the Sake of Strategic Gain

 

Yoav Limor

Israel Hayom, Oct. 3, 2022

 

“Israel has made a tactical concession for a strategic gain of stability on the northern border.”

 

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.

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.” source



Donate CIJR

Become a CIJR Supporting Member!

Most Recent Articles

Syria: Is Iran Retreating While Turkey Advances?

0
By David Bensoussan The author is a professor of science at the University of Quebec. For 54 years, the Assad dictatorship, led by father and son,...

The Empty Symbolism of Criminal Charges Against Hamas

0
Jeff Jacoby The Boston Globe, Sept. 8, 2024 “… no Palestinian terrorist has ever been brought to justice in the United States for atrocities committed against Americans abroad.”   Hersh Goldberg-Polin...

Britain Moves Left, But How Far?

0
Editorial WSJ, July 5, 2024   “Their failures created an opening for Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, a party promising stricter immigration controls and the lower-tax policies...

HELP CIJR GET THE MESSAGE ACROSS

0
"For the second time this year, it is my greatest merit to lead you into battle and to fight together.  On this day 80...

Subscribe Now!

Subscribe now to receive the
free Daily Briefing by email

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

  • Subscribe to the Daily Briefing

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.