What are the Lebanese observations that prompted Israel to escalate the maritime border demarcation file?

Beirut

- The Israeli rejection of the Lebanese comments on Washington's draft of the maritime border demarcation halted the course of the border negotiations with Lebanon in its critical and articulated stage.

Analysts believe that the Israeli confusion is expected under the weight of preparing for a heated electoral battle between Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid and his rival, Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu, and the latter may seek to overthrow the demarcation agreement, or freeze it until after the elections, while Lebanon awaits a clear official response from the American mediator. about Israel's position.

After rejecting Beirut's comments, the Israeli cabinet tasked Lapid and Defense Minister Benny Gantz with preparing for any possible escalation with Lebanon.

Accordingly, the negotiations entered a new turning point with which it opened the doors to multiple possibilities, including: either Tel Aviv’s insistence on rejecting Beirut’s remarks, specifically related to the line of buoys and the Qana field, or entering a gray area entitled to shuffle the cards again in the course of indirect negotiations, and many fear that it will lead to Uncalculated repercussions in light of the escalation of Israel's position against what it considers to be concessions in favor of Hezbollah.

Lebanese notes

The Lebanese side did not officially disclose the content of the American offer, but less than 10 points were leaked from it, the most prominent of which focused on the status of the Qana field, the line of buoys and the mechanism of work of Total in favor of Lebanon when excavating in Qana.

The information indicates that the notes that Lebanon handed over to the American mediator, Amos Hochstein, last Monday, some of them are legal technical terms related to phrases contained in the draft. Lebanon demanded that it be reformulated in order to preserve its right now and in the future, and not to fall into legal traps, and to fortify its position in the face of Israel, according to what the writer and analyst says. Politician Wassim Bazzi for Al Jazeera Net.

Bazzi details the two essential observations that provoked tension and confusion in Israel, as follows:

Lebanon refused to recognize the so-called line of sea buoys, "the buoys", and considered it illegal, in return for starting from the demarcation of the maritime borders from a marine point, Line 23, to start about 6 kilometers from the land.

Consequently, Lebanon's ownership of the "B-1" point, located in the Gulf of Ras Al-Naqoura, was consecrated as part of its maritime borders.

With regard to the Qana field, Lebanon will not provide any financial compensation to Israel, and it is Total that pays Tel Aviv, and that any future dispute between Total and the Israeli government does not affect the exploration and extraction process in favor of Lebanon.

Bazzi - familiar with the Lebanese notes - says that Lebanon was decisive in terms of not accepting the line of buoys as a fait accompli that cuts off part of its territorial waters;

Accordingly, “Lebanon has separated land and sea, and this is what makes Israel miss the continuation of holding the ruling points in the area of ​​the line of buoys that reveal to Israel all of the Gulf of Acre and its northern coast.”

Bazzi added that, based on Israel's rejection of the term "Qana field", the US draft called it the "Sidon" field, so Lebanon requested to name it the "Sidon-Qana" field.

Lebanon also insisted on adhering to the "veto" right in this field, and not allowing Israel to dispose of it outside the Lebanese will.

legal circumstances

Amid conflicting readings, lawyer and professor of international law Paul Morcos clarifies to Al Jazeera Net some issues related to Lebanon's observations and the border demarcation agreement with Israel;

The issue of the buoys line dates back to 2000 after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, which is 7 kilometers long, from Ras Al-Naqoura to the west, while the length of the maritime border is 130 kilometers, that is, it does not exceed 10% of the border area, and it is not related to the gas and oil file because the Lebanese blocks are 3 miles away. about the beach.

According to the scientific definition, "marine buoys (buoys) are traffic signs for the traffic and safety of ships, or anything else passing through the sea."

In the event that the coordinates of the buoys identical to the Israeli line number one are recognized for the demarcation of the land border, meaning the cut from the Lebanese border is about 2 square kilometers, then Israel takes the argument that Lebanon has recognized the line of buoys, and there is no turning back from it.

The expert explains that this line does not meet with the point of Ras al-Naqoura, but rather to the north of it;

"Which means that any step of this kind leads to the transfer of ownership of the Naqoura Tunnel to the Israelis and making it within their borders."

It is mentioned that the border is a recognition of a dividing line between two countries, and when it is deposited with the United Nations, the border becomes official.

With regard to Lebanon, "the borders of the oil blocks are the same as the maritime borders at Line 23, which Lebanon had reported to the United Nations in 2011. On this basis, blocks 8-9-10 were drawn; thus, Line 23 was adopted as a maritime border line and a border line for the oil blocks." And the Qana field, which crosses Block 9 and Line 23, remains.

Therefore, "the research revolves around Lebanon's obtaining all of the oil and gas from the Qana field, provided that the French company Total compensates Israel."

Legally, Morcos confirms that Lebanon’s remarks are wary of uncalculated pitfalls, “because any economic deal with Israel is by virtue of its recognition as a state, so it takes place through Washington as a mediator between the two sides, and if Israel wants its share of the Qana field, it will not be through Lebanon.” .

time pressure

Politically, the question arises about the fate of the agreement as a pivotal event for charting the rhythm of the relationship between Lebanon and Israel. Here Wassim Bazzi says that Israel's negative reaction to Lebanon's remarks means a breaking of the optimism stage by reviving the logic of tension and escalation.

However, Lebanon - according to him - should be wary of being drawn into a media debate, in return for dealing professionally, waiting for what the Americans will report, and hearing Washington's official position as a final word on the negotiation track.

But if Israel insists on its passivity, "Lebanon will throw the argument before Washington and the international community, and exhaust all available opportunities for negotiation in the peaceful sense."

Negotiations to demarcate the maritime borders between Lebanon and Israel are indirect technical negotiations and are held under American mediation and UN sponsorship (Al-Jazeera)

No agreement, no exploration?

For his part, writer and political analyst Hussein Ayoub says that Lebanon today is after the Israeli position rejecting his remarks in front of the following equation: no agreement, no drilling in the Karish and Qana fields, and a war in which Washington, Israel and Hezbollah have no interest.

Ayoub believes that the chance of agreement on the demarcation of the border between Lebanon and Israel has become very weak, and he also believes that Washington is in great embarrassment, because the time factor is very important to it.

Internationally, America views the agreement from the standpoint of the global energy crisis after the Russian-Ukrainian war.

In Lebanon, Washington did not want the two parties to the agreement to reach October 31, the end of the term of the term of Lebanese President Michel Aoun, and the resulting debate over the constitutionality of the signing in the absence of an elected president and a caretaker government;

Which makes the scene of the three presidents sitting together to discuss the American show impossible after it.

In Israel, Washington prefers to complete the agreement before October 31, and since it is not enthusiastic about Netanyahu, it "fears that it will be subject to a dangerous Israeli test that may open the front with Lebanon."

And the negative echoes of Tel Aviv confirm - according to Ayoub - the validity of American fears towards Israel, because the pressure exerted by Netanyahu and the opposition gave a great effect.

Ayoub added that "Washington has a critical 25-day opportunity to put pressure on, which may exert an unprecedented momentum to revive the negotiations and avoid the repercussions of the fall of the agreement."