Vice Premier: Iran, Hezbollah behind Lebanon protest over Israel sea border

[azurnoir]

The Vice Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon said at a meeting of cabinet ministers on Sunday that Iran and Hezbollah are behind the government of Lebanon's petition to the United Nations concerning the maritime border with Israel.

Ya'alon said that Iran and Hezbollah are purposefully trying to create a new source of friction with Israel.

"We signed an agreement with Cyprus that is in keeping with its agreement with Lebanon," said Ya'alon. "When we announced our gas drilling, the Iranians and Hezbollah decided that it would be a good excuse for conflict with us."

"They decided to sketch a new border south of the line that was agreed to in talks between Lebanon and Cyprus, and basically entered our territory," Ya'alon continued. "It was done with premeditation in order to create conflict with us, just like the Sheba Farms."


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/vice-premier-iran-hezbollah-behind-lebanon-protest-over-israel-sea-border-1.372532

[azurnoir]

1. U.S. backs Lebanon on maritime border dispute with Israel

Amid rising tensions over gas reserves, Israel to submit proposal to UN on where maritime economic border with Lebanon should be over next few days; U.S. endorsed Lebanon's proposal submitted to UN in August.

<snip>

The Lebanese proposal does not include the large Tamar and Leviathan gas prospects, operated by Delek Energy and U.S. company Noble Energy. But the National Infrastructure Ministry found that the proposal contains reserves with a potential value in the billions of dollars.

<snip>

The Foreign Ministry official said Israel had asked the Americans to relay a warning to Lebanon on the matter. Foreign Ministry officials told Hof that Israel would not allow a provocation on the matter or an attack on Israeli gas installations. They said Israel would consider such an attack an attack on its sovereign territory and would retaliate "strongly" against Lebanon.

Hof responded by suggesting that Israel submit to the United Nations its own outlook on the border and try to launch a dialogue. Hof asked Israel not to turn the issue into a political spat but to see it as an economic and technical matter that could benefit all parties.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-backs-lebanon-on-maritime-border-dispute-with-israel-1.372377

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ya'alon's words are merely hyperbolic blowhardery IMO

[shaayecanaan]

2. Congratulations to the US for standing on principle, for once...

and thanks for posting the story. I noticed it earlier today but forgot all about it.

[azurnoir]

3. as to the US standing on principlr that IMO remains to be seen

up until this point Israel has not complained quite so loudly if at all, I wonder if Mr Hof will be seeking new employment soon

[shira]

4. Nonsense. The Lebanese proposal didn't even include areas adjacent to the Tamar/Leviathan areas.

A map of the area is included in this article...
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/1101/Oil-and-gas-discoveries-produce-potential-Israel-Lebanon-flash-points

[azurnoir]

5. that was included in the snip in comment #1n/t

[shira]

6. The snip was just about Tamar/Leviathan, not areas directly adjacent to them. n/t

[Igel]

7. Wrong map.

That's Noble Energy's map, which they've been using for a few years based on the original proposal that Lebanon worked out with Cyprus.

It was reasonable to assume that they were serious about the southern border because if Lebanon had drawn the border farther south then they'd have been required to work out an extension of the Lebanese/Cypriot economic zone border. In other words, if the border with Israel was just a placeholder, then either they were specifying a border that wouldn't exist or need additional border that they failed to specify.

Israel just followed the border that Lebanon had drawn. It's the one that Noble Energy used. Lebanon hasn't ratified that agreement, and the new government doesn't like it, it would seem. They want the line drawn farther south now.

It wouldn't clearly include the Leviathan and Tamar fields, but would come very close to them (from what I can gather).

What's humorous is that the Leviathan basin runs up to the Syrian coast and there's no reason to suspect that there's not a huge amount of natural gas in what Lebanon, in 2007, said was Lebanese waters. To check this out they'd need to license some exploratory wells in those areas. But instead they seem to be licensing exploration precisely in contested areas.

[azurnoir]

8. Do you have a link to the map Lebanon is using?

do you proof that Lebanon is only after 'Israels" NG?

[shaayecanaan]

9. There's a copy of that map on this post...

http://www.lebmoon.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31145

You can ignore the other lines on this post, they're not borders, some geological nonsense.

The difference between the two is only about 15 kilometres at the widest point (near the boundary with Cyprus). Basically, the Israeli proposal jags northward rather than following the line of the boundary between Israel and Lebanon, and the Lebanese proposal doesnt.

[shaayecanaan]

10. Rubbish

"It was reasonable to assume that they were serious about the southern border because if Lebanon had drawn the border farther south then they'd have been required to work out an extension of the Lebanese/Cypriot economic zone border."

The Lebanese flagged this issue with the Cypriots during border negotiations. The Cypriots said that they weren't going to renegotiate boundaries with Lebanon that they had already negotiated with Israel, and said that they weren't going to be the arbitrators of a border dispute between the Israeli and Lebanese governments, which is fair enough.

The Lebanese and Cypriot governments agreed to demarcate the remaining borders in order to give certainty in relation to other exploration areas. The Cypriots indicated that if the borders were revised then they would reflect this in their own dealings. The Lebanese for their part indicated that even if Lebanon succeeded in its efforts to have its own border proposal accepted against Israel, it was unlikely that they would seek any further territory from Cyprus.

There was certainly not the slightest intention on the part of Lebanon that the demarcation of the non-disputed boundaries with Cyprus amounted to an acceptance of Israeli territorial claims in relation to Lebanese waters.