AI generated this summary from the Hebrew recording. No human has checked it, and it may contain errors. The recording is the authoritative source.
In this episode, Dr. Benny Spanier, a research fellow at the Maritime Policy & Strategy Research Center and the Blue Economy Center of the Haifa municipality, joins the show to discuss the maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon. Dr. Spanier explains the historical and legal background that led to the dispute, details the interests of each side, and describes the specifics of the US-brokered agreement and its implications today.
Read the full episode summary
Why a border is needed at sea
According to Dr. Spanier, demarcating borders at sea is a much more complex task than marking borders on land. Historically, the need for a maritime border hardly existed, but towards the 17th century, states began to understand the economic importance of their adjacent maritime space, mainly for fishing purposes. The first principle that developed was the “cannon shot rule,” which granted a state sovereignty over a sea strip about three miles wide from the coast.
The real revolution occurred in the mid-20th century, with the discovery of oil and natural gas reserves at sea. States realized that there were enormous resources on the seabed, and this created an urgent need to establish clear borders to regulate exploration and production rights. The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Israel has not signed but accepts its principles, stipulates that every state has an exclusive economic zone of up to 200 miles from its coast, and that overlapping areas should be divided “fairly and equitably.”
The background of the dispute between Israel and Lebanon
Dr. Spanier explains that until the 1990s, Israel’s maritime border was not a significant issue. After the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, Israel unilaterally drew a maritime border line based on the principle of equal distance from the coasts. This line, marked with buoys for the first five kilometers, became the routine security line.
The complication began with a series of regional agreements. In 2003, Egypt and Cyprus signed a maritime border agreement. In 2007, Lebanon and Cyprus signed a similar agreement, but Lebanon canceled it. In 2010, Israel signed a maritime border agreement with Cyprus. According to Spanier, the problem arose because Israel, in its agreement with Cyprus, started its line from a point further north than the one it set in 2000. It relied on the point established in the canceled agreement between Lebanon and Cyprus. This move created a “disputed triangle” of about 860 square kilometers between Israel and Lebanon.
The dispute over the area intensified when it became clear that a gas field, dubbed “Qana” by the Lebanese, was likely located within this triangle. While Israel has large gas reserves, Lebanon, which is in a deep economic crisis, has not found gas in its territory, and the Qana field became its great economic hope. However, no energy company was willing to invest in exploration in a disputed area.
The 2022 agreement
Against the backdrop of the stalemate and the difficult economic situation in Lebanon, a US mediation process began, led by Amos Hochstein. According to Dr. Spanier, the Israeli government gave the mediators three guidelines: to reach an agreed-upon international border line, to create strategic stability, and to enable the secure development of gas fields.
Ultimately, the agreement reached in October 2022 stipulated that Israel would return to the original border line it drew in 2000. In doing so, Israel relinquished its claim to the triangle area it created in 2010. The agreement is not a direct one between Israel and Lebanon. Each country signed a separate document with the United States, and the agreement was deposited with the UN.
The current situation and open issues
Dr. Spanier argues that the agreement is valid under international law, even without ratification by the Knesset. He rejects the claim that Israel “gave up territory,” explaining that it was territory Israel had unilaterally claimed in a move that was legally questionable from the start. He notes that since the current war began, the maritime arena has remained quiet and Hezbollah has refrained from firing at the gas rigs, which in his view indicates that the agreement has created a stable balance of deterrence.
However, two issues remain open. The first is the five-kilometer-wide sea strip adjacent to the coast. This area was defined as “status quo” because the starting point of the land border, in the Rosh HaNikra area, is still disputed. A final solution will only be possible after the 13 disputed points on the land border are settled.
The second issue is the Qana gas field. Exploratory drilling conducted at the site after the agreement revealed that the field likely does not contain a commercial quantity of gas. According to Dr. Spanier, this is an unfortunate situation, as it is in Israel’s interest for Lebanon to be an economically stable country. He hopes that future exploration north of the border line will yield positive results for the Lebanese.
The original episode, in Hebrew: הגבול הימי ישראל-לבנון