BRYEN: Will A Key US Deal Make Lebanon’s Problems Even Worse?

BRYEN: Will A Key US Deal Make Lebanon’s Problems Even Worse?

Shoshana Bryen on October 12, 2022

The White House is taking a bow for success in achieving U.S.-Israel and U.S.-Lebanon agreements to delineate a maritime border between them that will allow Lebanon to begin exploiting the natural gas resources in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Not so fast.

The details haven’t been released yet, but the situation deserves attention.

Lebanon, a once-lovely, once-prosperous country, is now an insolvent pit that has its people scavenging in dumpsters for dinner. The Syrian civil war; Iranian-proxy Hezbollah’s capture of the south and installation of tens of thousands of missiles aimed at Israel in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701; COVID-19; a terrorist-dominated government in Beirut; and general governmental incompetence — plus corruption — all contributed. Utterly broke and without a functioning government, Lebanon is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown.

“Military experience gained from fighting in Syria’s civil war and decades of clashes with Israel have made [Hezbollah] stronger than ever, but the biggest threat it faces may be upheaval in its own backyard,” according to The Council on Foreign Relations.

The Lebanese people are fed up with their corrupt and militaristic government and have been in rebellion since October 2019. You could be forgiven for thinking the best thing for the U.S. to do would be to help them get rid of Hezbollah and Iran. The U.S., however, decided that the answer is to put more money in the hands of Hezbollah. So, the U.S. set out to negotiate that treaty – sort of.

Negotiations work best when the parties agree on an endgame and discuss — even acrimoniously — how to get there. [Think MLB strike – players and management agreed that a full season of baseball was the goal. Each side put out a maximal position and worked backward. They got their season.]  Furthermore, a treaty is only as useful/valid/good as the government that stands behind it. Some adhere to their commitments and some cheat. Some cheat a little bit and some cheat a lot.

Israel and Lebanon never sat in the same room to argue their differences or find agreement. In fact, the whole exercise resembles the American experience “negotiating” with Iran in Vienna. American interests were handled by others, including Russia and China, while the American “negotiators” sat outside the room negotiating nothing. In this case, the U.S. is handling Israel’s “interests” and Lebanon’s “interests,” and the deal will be signed between the U.S. and each of the parties, not between the parties.

This leads, invariably, to different interpretations by different interests.

One “pro-deal” observer enthused, “The ability to generate and implement common interests is a calming and restraining element.  Lebanon is a broken, insolvent country on the verge of anarchy, and the money it would gain from gas drilling would help it stabilize.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Yair Lapid agrees. “We do not oppose the development of an additional Lebanese gas field, from which we will of course receive the share we deserve. Such a field will weaken Lebanon’s dependence on Iran, restrain Hezbollah and promote regional stability.”

On the other hand, Lebanon appears already to be rewriting the deal. Wanting the revenue, but apparently unwilling to write a check to Israel for required royalties from the Lebanese treasury, analyst Hussain Abdul Hussain reports, “Sophism led Hezbollah to say that Israel’s revenues will not be deducted from Lebanese money, but from the [French energy company] Total, as if Total would pay Israel out of its own pocket.”

And even the White House thought it necessary to hedge. “It is now critical that all parties uphold their commitments and work towards implementation.” Shouldn’t that be a “given” in a new agreement? Why isn’t it?

To make things more complicated, in Israel, concession of sovereign territory requires a 2/3 majority in Knesset or a referendum. The law was designed to apply to the West Bank and Gaza. How it will apply to the maritime border with Lebanon is not clear, but there is little time left before the next Israeli election – and what happens if the government changes is also unclear.

At the end, Americans generally like to believe that governments are good and that if you provide them with resources, they will feed, house, clothe, and advance their people, living in comity with the neighbors. Some are and some do. Hezbollah is not among those.

In its quest for a deal before the U.S. elections, the administration has put Israel in a shaky position next door to a country that will not even sign a check for them, let alone sign a border treaty or a peace agreement. And it abandons the Lebanese people to the forces of Hezbollah and Iran.

Perhaps the best that can be said, was written by an astute observer, “This deal, if done, will mark the first time Lebanon can make the leap into obtaining something it seeks by agreement more economically than by violence.”

Let’s hope.

Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.