Israel-Lebanon Maritime Deal Faces Strong Opposition Within Lebanon, Doubts Over Its Durability

The recent maritime agreement between Israel and Lebanon is facing significant internal opposition within Lebanon, casting doubt on its long-term viability. Dr. Abd Kanaaneh, a Middle East history expert at Tel Aviv University, explains that multiple Lebanese factions, not just Hezbollah, reject the deal, comparing it unfavorably to a failed 1983 agreement. Prominent Lebanese figures such as Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt have publicly criticized the accord, with Berri calling it worse than the 1983 deal. The agreement is seen by Israel as an attempt to reduce Iranian influence in Lebanon, but Iran maintains strong ties with Hezbollah and other Lebanese groups, complicating the situation.

Dr. Kanaaneh highlights that the Lebanese government and military lack the capacity to disarm Hezbollah, which is deeply embedded within the state’s structures. He notes that about 40% or more of the Lebanese army personnel are Shia and related to Hezbollah members, making any attempt to confront the group through the military likely to fail. The Lebanese army functions more as an internal policing force rather than a conventional military capable of challenging Hezbollah. Even the more powerful Israeli Defense Forces have been unable to disarm Hezbollah, underscoring the difficulty Lebanon faces.

The expert concludes that the main path to resolving the Hezbollah issue involves diplomatic agreements and territorial withdrawals rather than military action. The maritime deal, while a positive step from Israel’s perspective to weaken Iranian influence, remains fragile due to Lebanon’s internal political dynamics and Hezbollah’s entrenched power. The article also references a related podcast episode discussing the broader political complexities involving Israel, Lebanon, and Iran.