by JAMES R. STOCKER — warontherocks.com — On Oct. 14, Lebanese and Israeli officials began talks over their common maritime border, which has drawn attention in recent years after the discovery of significant amounts of oil and gas in the eastern Mediterranean. The two countries have long disagreed over questions such as what country owns the Shebaa farms, whether Hizballah should be allowed to maintain arms, and if Israeli military aircraft should be allowed to fly over Lebanese air space. After Israel signed a maritime agreement laying out the boundaries of its exclusive economic zone with Cyprus in 2010, Lebanon protested the arrangement and declared its own boundary, creating an area of disputed territory of around 860 square kilometers. It took the two countries 10 years to come to the table, but in September American mediators finally brokered a so-called “framework agreement” governing how the negotiations would proceed.
Given that Israel has recently opened diplomatic relations with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, and seems likely to do so with Sudan, some are asking whether these talks mean that Lebanon might be next. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that the negotiations “might be a first sign for peace,” while cautioning that “there will be no peace with Lebanon as long as Hizballah is in control of it.” Lebanese President Michel Aoun, a Hizballah ally, has declared that peace may be possible under the right circumstances, including the resolution of all outstanding disputes between the two countries, presumably including the sea border. Aoun’s daughter has stated even more clearly that resolving outstanding disputes would make peace possible.
Officials from all sides have been attempting to manage expectations that these negotiations will resolve all of the issues between the two countries. Indeed, at the talks, the two sides have been sitting in the same room, but the Lebanese side refused to address the Israelis directly, insisting that all communications be delivered by U.S. or U.N. mediators. In such an atmosphere, what exactly can the various parties hope to achieve? A look at the history of negotiations between Israel and Lebanon suggests some lessons. For both governments, the prospect of reaching pragmatic, mutually beneficial agreements has often seemed enticing, but mistrust and skepticism about the willingness and ability of the other to deliver on promises mean that these agreements frequently fall apart. However, negotiations have proved likely to succeed, and agreement most likely to endure, when they have narrowly focused on technical issues, included third parties as monitors, and enjoyed support both from a majority of the Lebanese population and from other regional powers.
