“Israel” was shocked! Will the maritime border demarcation negotiations be...

Brigadier General Dr. Amin Mohamed Hoteit –

In order to cut off the road to the Lebanese negotiator who is conducting indirect negotiations in Naqoura in order to demarcate the maritime borders of Lebanon with occupied Palestine that is usurped by Israel, and despite what was said about him that it was agreed that the negotiations should be kept in complete secrecy and with great confidentiality, and in advance of the subsequent round of negotiations scheduled for 11/11/2020, the Israeli Ministry of Energy took a remarkable stance in the enemy’s entity that undermines the essence of the negotiations and their topic when it announced that “Israel will not conduct negotiations with Lebanon on the Karish and Tanin or Crocodile gas fields”, and that its delegation in Naqoura is not It is authorized to research more than one issue of ownership of the disputed area with Lebanon, amounting to 860 km2, which arose as a result of a mistake in Lebanon’s approach to the issue with Cyprus in 2007, and therefore the public Israeli position simply means that negotiations are to resolve a conflict and not to demarcate borders, which means that it is torpedoing or altering negotiations. From demarcating non-existent maritime borders to settling a dispute over ownership of an area over which the two parties are fighting. How will Lebanon respond, and what will be the fate of the negotiations in this situation?

To begin with, it must be acknowledged that Lebanon has accumulated errors in the handling of the file of demarcating its maritime borders since the file was handled by non-specialized and non-specialized hands, so the first mistake in the draft agreement he prepared with Cyprus was to set point (1) as the basis point that represents the southwestern corner of the economic zone Then the second mistake was in dealing with the Israeli aggression on the points of Ras al-Naqoura, B1 and the Palestinian islands and their impact on the border line, contrary to governing rules stipulated in the Law of the Sea for the year 1982, and then the third error was in what was called the “Framework Agreement for Indirect Negotiation” (which is a fact An understanding, not an agreement), this understanding that established negotiations on weak references that have nothing to do with the demarcation of borders (the April Understanding, the Blue Line, and Resolution 1701) and neglected the three basic references that without which free borders could not be drawn and Lebanon’s rights to its land, sea and wealth from others cannot be preserved. It is the “Boulet-Newcomb” agreement according to which the land borders between Lebanon and Palestine were drawn, the “armistice agreement” between Lebanon and the Israeli enemy that affirmed those land borders, and the Sea Law Agreement that delineated Maritime borders between countries according to it, as well as Resolution 425.

However, before entering the indirect negotiations to demarcate the maritime borders, or accepting them in the first place, Lebanon sought to address these mistakes and evade their effects in a legal manner, and then prepared its file with complete provisions that would enable it to prove its rights at sea and with what it stores of wealth. For this reason, the competent state agencies were recruited and put their capabilities at the disposal of the army leadership and the president of the republic the first and only constitutional meaning of negotiation and directed to the army leadership as the commander in chief of the armed forces. Confronting an enemy of the nature of the Zionist enemy who professes seizing opportunities, usurping rights and breaking the law.

Accordingly, the President of the Republic, along with the Armed Forces Commander, and through specialized groups of lawmen and experience demarcating the borders, were able to uncover these mistakes and fill the gaps in the “framework understanding”, which disrupted its effects that were lost on Lebanon at a first glance 860 km2 arose as a result of the first error, then 1430 km2 as a result The second mistake and the Israeli aggression with it, then it was prevented from stripping Lebanon of the legal referential weapon that protects Lebanese rights.

On 10/14/2020, indirect negotiations were launched in Naqoura and its main parties were starting, apparently from different rules bordering them with conflicting goals, as the Lebanese delegation overcomes the mistakes committed and corrects their effects through established legal references that no one can cross (the Borders and Armistice Agreement and the Law The seas) and its goal is to demarcate the maritime borders, while the Israeli delegation based its position on Lebanese mistakes and what it calls “international precedents”, with the aim of preserving the fields it seized.

It was clear that the difference in the starting rules and objectives would lead to a divergence in the direction of the negotiations and their results, and the issue became more serious when something else was revealed in the negotiating parties ’view of the negotiation function, while Lebanon wants the negotiations to first define the boundaries of its economic zone and then determine the ownership of the oil fields. And on the basis of this line, it became clear that “Israel” wants to draw the line in a manner that takes into account its adherence to the three gas fields, Karish, Dragon and Two Leaves, and proceeds from the saying that “international precedents” and “the framework agreement” removed these fields from the circle of discussion and that it is not ready to open the file again. And the most important task of her delegation in Naqoura today is to discuss how to divide the disputed 860 km2 area, which Hof presented to Nabih Berri a project that divided it at a rate of 500 km for Lebanon and 360 km for “Israel”.

As for Lebanon, after the President of the Republic put his hand on the issue, it showed itself in another situation outside the Israeli perception, and that the Lebanese delegation prepared itself contrary to the Israeli position and committed itself to work in accordance with the law in the interest of the rights that its rules set aside for Lebanon, and it presented its file with high merit in accordance with these rules without stopping When mistakes were made by those who do not have the authority to negotiate an international according to the constitution, and Lebanon affirmed that it is now negotiating for the first time represented by the constitutional authority authorized to negotiate international, and it is delegated to represent it in the negotiations by military personnel and experts specializing in the matter and therefore cannot be asked about any of the three mistakes that would make That Lebanon lost 2,290 square kilometers of its economic zone, and this shocked Israel and forced it to maneuver or depart from the negotiating issue.

“Israel” insisted on these negotiations at this particular time because it thought that Lebanon is politically contested, economically collapsed, and socially fragmented, which is going through its worst days since its establishment in 1920, that this Lebanon will be weak and weak in front of it, and it will obey the dictates of the “honest” American mediator working first and foremost. To her advantage, but she was surprised that the Lebanese military-technical delegation in Naqoura is much stronger than she expected and its argument is much stronger than she imagined, and that it adheres to the law and is not restricted by the mistakes of others who are not competent and competent, and this was her shock that prompted her to threaten to stop the negotiation, so would she do?

However, “Israel” and before making its decision to continue negotiations or stop it, it must remember, realize, or inform it of Lebanon through the “honest” mediator and “international sponsor” of the following facts – the following assumptions:

1 – The issue of indirect negotiation is the demarcation of borders that do not exist before, and the settlement of a dispute over existing borders that are tampered with. The logic of dealing with maritime borders is completely different from the logic of dealing with land borders. Whereas, the latter has been in existence, fixed, and has been in existence since 1923, and “Israel” has tampered with it, while the former is not present in the first place, is not demarcated and needs to be demarcated.

2 – The mistakes committed by unworthy Lebanese do not lose Lebanon its rights and are not likely to create for “Israel” acquired rights, especially since none of these wrong behavior was not “Israel” in the first place a direct party in it, nor did it reach the final As a result of signature or conclusion.

3- Lebanon is negotiating on the basis of international rules approved for demarcating maritime borders (border agreements, armistice and the law of the sea), and it does not see or recognize any reference other than that, and that the goal of negotiations is to draw the maritime boundary line, and after drawing the line, ownership of oil and gas fields is also considered according to the law The seas, and Lebanon cannot put the cart before the horse and negotiate on the field before drawing the boundary line.

4- If negotiations are stopped by an “Israeli” decision and demarcation is suspended, then “Israel” should refrain from exploring the entire area of ​​the 2290 that Lebanon considers its right, and if it enters into it, then its action constitutes aggression and a violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty and rights, which requires an appropriate response and by all available means.