Sharp criticism from the former American ambassador, David Friedman, of the maritime border agreement between Lebanon and Israel.
Friedman, who served in the position between 2017-2020 and accompanied the previous round of talks, believes that the outline reached is a victory for Hezbollah.
In an exclusive interview with Israel Hayom, conducted on Friday by phone, Friedman explains that only Hezbollah's insistence on receiving the full disputed territory resulted in Israel giving it up.
"I don't understand the claim (made by senior Israeli officials; AK) that Hezbollah lost.
The experience gained in our time was that the Lebanese government would agree to a proposal in this spirit of the mediator Fred Hoff, who talked about handing over 60 percent of the territory to Lebanon and 40 percent to Israel.
"The Israeli government also agreed to the outline at the time. The one who objected was Hezbollah. So if the idea was to separate Lebanon from Hezbollah, then in this agreement the opposite happened."
"Lebanon received a better agreement."
Former US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, photo: Dodi Vakanin
why?
"Because Hezbollah is the party that managed to get others to move from the position we were in a few years ago. Therefore, it seems to me that Hezbollah is in a good position to be the one who won here. Hezbollah was not directly part of the talks, but it was its position that brought Lebanon the additional 40 percent. This addition, compared to For what was in the past, it is a product of Hezbollah's activity. By the way, not only I, who is seen as a political personality, says this, but also the mediator at the time, David Shanker, who is a professional diplomat in the State Department."
Based on your experience, could you have gotten a better deal?
"Not when Hezbollah is in the picture. Lebanon has now received a better agreement because Hezbollah does not oppose it. Israel actually agreed to the 'one hundred and zero' outline. We would never push it to such a position."
There will be those who will claim that your very statement that Hezbollah won is helping Nasrallah.
"I have no interest in helping Nasrallah. He is helping himself, and in my estimation he will also take credit for this result."
Will Hezbollah make money from the Kana reservoir, assuming gas is found there?
"I don't know. But in general, it is very difficult to stop the flow of capital."
So based on the information published so far about the agreement, compared to what was on the table in 2020, is this deal not good for Israel?
"My view of things is from an American point of view. Even when I served as ambassador, I would refrain from telling the Israelis what was good for them. We did not pressure Israel at all, and we did not try to move it from its position, which seemed reasonable to us at the time. I am not in the room, but my concern is that in this round President Biden and his envoy for the talks, Amos Hochstein, put too much pressure on Israel.
"My impression is that the administration is motivated by an intra-American political goal, to show the public that they have managed to develop an energy source that is not subject to American regulation. Because Biden has a problem with his political base, which opposes the production of energy from fossil sources. His administration has lost the energy advantage that the United States had , and his attempt to get Saudi Arabia to increase oil production was also unsuccessful.
So maybe they put pressure on Israel for the same reason.
Also, they want to show that they have a diplomatic record in the Middle East.
That's how the whole thing seems political to me.
Are you asking me if this is good for Israel?
If this agreement is a product of American pressure, then it is probably not good for Israel."
"Domestic American politics".
Biden, photo: Reuters
As someone who was involved in the Abraham Accords and other political processes in the region, what do you think is the message that the Israeli concession sends to other players?
"This position may be the right one for Israel. There is logic in giving up the Kana Reservoir in order to have a safe operation of the Shark. It is not unreasonable. But in another sense, it seems a step that projects a sense of weakness. It is a message that has results: it tells the world that Israel is ready to pay More for protection. I can't predict the future, but it's not a decision without consequences. The question is, do you want to be seen as someone who gave more to a terrorist organization while giving up your territory? That's a dangerous message."
Supporters of the agreement say that Hezbollah made an ideological compromise, essentially allowing indirect talks between Lebanon and Israel.
"This is only a symbolic willingness. The idea of giving Lebanon energy independence is good. But at the end of the day, Lebanon, which is an unstable country, is only bound by its agreement with the US."
And the US promised guarantees to Israel...
"As an American citizen, I do not understand the idea of American guarantees to Israel. Let's assume that Lebanon withdraws from the agreement - what will the US do?
Will she protect Israel if a shark is attacked?
Will Israel demand that the US protect it? This is contrary to the entire narrative of Israel as one that defends itself on its own. Also, there have already been American guarantees, such as President Bush's letter to Sharon (on the eve of disengagement in 2005).
"History teaches us that these letters don't mean much. So I don't understand the noise surrounding the issue of guarantees. On the contrary, in certain situations they may even lead to tensions between the US and the State of Israel."
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us