Israel High Court Greenlights Signing of 'Dangerous' Lebanon Deal

The Israeli High Court of Justice on Sunday unanimously rejected all petitions filed against the controversial maritime border deal with Lebanon, paving the way for the signing of U.S.-mediated agreement, which has been deemed “extremely dangerous” by its opponents.

The deal may be signed as early as this week, pending the arrival of U.S. mediator, former U.S. Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein.

The petitions, filed by the Lavi organization for citizens’ rights and the Kohelet Policy Forum, claims that since the current government is only a caretaker one, any potential deal must first reach a Knesset vote.

Earlier this month, Israel and Lebanon announced that the two had reached a “historic agreement.”

Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid hailed the agreement as an “historic achievement that will strengthen Israel’s security, inject billions into Israel’s economy, and ensure the stability of our northern border.”

Last week, Israel’s Supreme Court Justice Esther Hayut, Justice Uzi Vogelman and Justice Noam Sohlberg ruled the caretaker government’s claims that there were “urgent security, diplomatic and economic reasons” was reason enough to approve the heal before the country heads again to national elections on November 1.

Hayut said:

With regard to international deals and treaties, the formal document is the government’s regulations. The Knesset has not passed any laws requiring a vote on these issues. According to the regulations, there are cases in which the cabinet can use its discretion and not even inform the Knesset about communications, if an agreement is secret. The question, in this case, is whether the cabinet examined all the relevant aspects and concluded that the agreement could be brought before the Knesset without a vote, which is a reasonable course of action.

Israel’s Supreme Court and justice system as a whole often comes under fire for its dovish rulings.

The Lavi Organization responded to the court’s decision, saying it constituted “a surrender to Hezbollah and endangers the security of Israel.”

The deal will allow energy production from the offshore Karish gas field, which is the crux of the dispute between the two nations. While Israel maintains that the gas field is within its territorial waters, Lebanon claims it’s partially within theirs. The two countries, which are technically still at war, never demarcated maritime borders.

Hezbollah, the terror group that effectively controls Lebanese politics, has threatened war over Israel’s decision to develop the Karish field and has attacked the rig twice in recent months. The Israeli military has intercepted several Hezbollah drones headed for the rig in over the summer.

The disputed area will be deemed Lebanese waters, according to Israeli sources, leading critics to slam the Lapid government for surrendering Israeli sovereign territory to an enemy state.

Professor Eugene Kontorovich, director of international law at the Jerusalem-based Kohelet Policy Forum, said the deal effectively meant “Hezbollah now overrides Israel’s democracy.”

“Transferring any national territory requires Knesset approval in Israeli law, as well as the constitutions of countries from the U.S. to Egypt. The reason the government claims it must do this now, before elections or a Knesset vote, is that this is Hezbollah’s demand to prevent war,” he said.