In the language of politics and diplomacy, discussions about border demarcation are optimistic, indicating that an agreement is on the horizon and awaits the right timing. However, beneath the surface, there is much unrest, particularly on the Israeli side, which is entering the election cycle, making it susceptible to populist pressures. These pressures have led to numerous contradictory and conflicting leaks. Some suggest that an agreement will be reached, while others argue that war is inevitable and preparedness for confrontation is necessary.
Erroneous Bidding
The Israeli bid is pushing to initiate gas extraction from the Karish field in September, after which the demarcation agreement would be made. The intent behind this is rooted in the desire to avoid the appearance that Israel, specifically Yair Lapid's government, has yielded to Hezbollah's pressures, which has refused to allow extraction before completing the demarcation agreement and permitting Lebanon to commence exploration operations.
Hezbollah views this Israeli interpretation as extremely incorrect and indicative of a miscalculation. The party is steadfast in its position, which could lead to a confrontation it labels as the Battle for Maritime Liberation, similar to previous campaigns for Land Liberation in the south and in the Beqaa.
Parallel Mechanisms
It is no longer useful to discuss the specifics of the agreement or the proposal that U.S. mediator Amos Hochstein will present. Regardless of what amendments he may propose, whether related to the entire Line 23 or point b1, these details have become secondary because it is crucial to reach a fundamental point: either an agreement is achieved, or it is not. All other discussions serve merely to dilute and waste time.
The same mechanism governs the Iranian-American negotiations on the eve of the midterm elections, which Joe Biden seeks to enhance his position through an agreement with Iran, aiming for a positive impact on the energy market. However, Biden simultaneously wishes to project an image of resisting Tehran and its militias, leading to strikes against them in eastern Syria.
The same announced positive atmosphere surrounding the nuclear file also envelops the border demarcation issue. Yet, no tangible progress has been made thus far. Israelis and Hezbollah are both interested in the details, as every nuance carries multiple implications. However, this is being utilized in a game of passing the ball, with both parties refusing to take responsibility. Both sides are bound by the agreement while simultaneously engaging in continuous daily escalation and mutual threats, which are essential for domestic and external investment and to impose a new reality in the region.
Diplomatic Confusion
Returning to the language of diplomats, there seems to be a consensus on the likelihood of reaching a demarcation agreement. They express an abundance of optimism, yet some take into account the possibility of both expected and unexpected escalations. These individuals believe that events can escalate suddenly and rapidly. They even go so far as to discuss how evacuation operations might occur in the event of confrontation or war.
