– Advertisement –
The relationship between Israel and Lebanon is marked by decades of conflict, controversial agreements and international interventions. Among major historical events, the 1983 peace agreement signed under American mediation remains an essential reference in bilateral diplomacy. This agreement, known as the “May 17 Agreement”, was intended to normalize relations between the two countries after the 1982 Israeli invasion, but it was never fully implemented due to a massive rejection of the part of Lebanese factions, notably Hezbollah and Syria.
According to Al Sharqthis agreement was seen as unbalanced, with Israel demanding strict security guarantees while Lebanon sought to preserve its territorial integrity and sovereignty. The tensions surrounding this agreement reveal the complexity of Lebanese internal dynamics, where each political faction defends often divergent interests. In comparison, more recent bilateral agreements, notably on the drawing of maritime borders in 2022, illustrate an evolution in the way in which the two states approach their disputes. The agreement on the delimitation of exclusive economic zones, negotiated under the aegis of the United States, reflects a pragmatic desire of both parties to resolve economic disputes while maintaining strict red lines on security issues.
The impact of bilateral agreements on regional security
The theme of security is central in Israeli-Lebanese bilateral relations. The 1983 agreement, although unsuccessful, remains a precedent in terms of negotiations on security guarantees. According to Ad DiyarIsrael demanded at the time an explicit commitment from Lebanon not to allow hostile activities from its territory, including by armed groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This requirement, which finds an echo in the current demands concerning Hezbollah, remains at the heart of the disputes.
The issue of security guarantees is also present in the 2022 maritime agreement. Although this agreement is mainly economic, it includes implicit clauses on respect for maritime demilitarized zones. Al Joumhouria reports that this agreement reduced tensions in Mediterranean waters, but that it did not eliminate friction around offshore gas platforms, seen as potential targets in a context of military escalation.
International mediations and future prospects
The role of the United States in mediating bilateral agreements is often central. Al Arabi Al Jadid points out that Washington was a key player not only in the 1983 agreement, but also in the 2022 negotiation. The United States seeks to preserve regional stability while securing its own energy and geopolitical interests.
Moreover, Al Akhbar highlights France’s place in mediation efforts. Historically involved in Lebanon, Paris has played a discreet but significant role in supporting bilateral discussions, particularly via the UN, to prevent tensions from spilling over into open confrontation.
However, full normalization between Israel and Lebanon remains a distant goal. Al Sharq Al Awsat reports that red lines set by Lebanese political factions, notably Hezbollah, are preventing any meaningful progress toward a comprehensive peace deal. Maintaining a security status quo appears to be the only viable option in the short term.
– Advertisement –
