Max Boot scrive, per The Washington Post, un editoriale sul recente accordo tra Israele e Libano. Si tratta, secondo l’Autore, di un punto a favore dell’Amministrazione Americana.
Scrive Boot: Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates On Oct. 11, Israel and Lebanon announced an agreement that would demarcate their maritime boundary. This sounds narrow and technical but is a major achievement given that the two countries have been formally at war since 1948. (And that has sometimes led to actual military conflict — most recently in 2006.) The two countries don’t have an internationally recognized land border, and they have not had a maritime border, either. That has been an invitation to conflict and an impediment to the exploitation of the large natural gas fields off their coasts. Israel has been producing offshore natural gas for years, but its latest field — known as Karish — lies perilously close to the disputed maritime boundary with Lebanon. Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, threatened to attack Israel’s oil rig in the area. Lebanon, for its part, has not been able to extract any natural gas at all because oil companies don’t want to drill in disputed areas. That natural gas is desperately needed by a country in economic meltdown whose citizens receive only an hour or two of power every day from the electrical grid.
Ragioni strategiche rendono l’accordo molto importante. E’ una questione di sicurezza regionale. Se l’accordo è decisivo per Israele perché aiuterà a salvaguardare i suoi giacimenti di gas naturale, lo è altrettanto per il Libano perché permetterà di sostenere un’economia fragilissima. Nota l’Autore che Israel does not want a failed state next door.
Un’ulteriore considerazione merita il fatto che Hezbollah, alleato dell’Iran, è da molto tempo – e resta – una minaccia per la sicurezza d’Israele e non ha posto veti. L’accordo, dunque, riveste ancora maggiore peso strategico.
