Huff admits: My mediation to demarcate the border failed

News: In a long and detailed article, former US Ambassador Frederick Hove lists, for the first time, the details of the mediation he led between Lebanon and “Israel” regarding the demarcation of the border. In his conclusion, he came to acknowledge the failure of the “achievement” proposal, which is thanks to American expert Ray Milevsky, not him.

For the first time, the former US ambassador, Frederick Hof, comes out to relate the mediation path that he undertook – at the request of the former US ambassador to Beirut, Maura Connelly – to demarcate the maritime borders between Lebanon and Palestine occupied between 2010 and 2012, and the secrets of what is known as the “Hove Line”. The article written by the American mediator in the “News Line” magazine was remarkable in terms of timeliness, especially with the suspension of the negotiations that began in Naqoura (on October 14), as a result of Lebanon proposing new lines based on maps that assert their right more than the Americans wanted to “give.” . Washington is still sticking to its offer of a deal based on the “Hove Line,” which the latter revealed was not its creation, but rather on the suggestion of US land and sea border expert Ray Milevsky.

In details and names, Hof, who was “busy trying to mediate peace between Syria and Israel,” mentioned the roles of the two negotiating parties (Lebanon and the enemy), how to arrive at a 55 percent formula for Lebanon versus at 45 percent for “Israel”, and how the two sides approached this proposal. . Make it clear at the end of the article that his goal is to acknowledge the failure of the American mediation he led.

Hof says that “Connelly asked him to help the two sides reach a single line that divides their exclusive economic zones, a single line that each of them raises separately to the United Nations, to avoid tensions.” Hof notes that his first task was “to ensure that Lebanon and Israel wanted this mediation to resolve the conflict” and that “Lebanon received him as a mediator, but the matter in Tel Aviv was more complicated.” As for the second task, it was “to form an expert team in maritime disputes and resolve them, and I managed to recruit Major Milvesky, who brought this mediation to the brink of success”, while the third task was “to establish trust with both parties, which required multiple trips between Beirut and Jerusalem. “

Huff, who praised the leadership of the two parties and their “methodological superiority,” noted that the mediation began with the assumption of Saad Hariri as prime minister, and that the latter appointed his foreign policy adviser, the late Minister Muhammad. Shatah, whom Hoff described as “friendly and strict in defending Lebanon’s rights” as the highest. A government agency is following up on the file. Hof said that Chatah suggested that “the oil revenue be distributed to every Lebanese adult, because the ruling system will steal it from him in the future,” considering that “this is what led to his assassination.”

After President Najib Mikati took over as Prime Minister in 2011, “my counterpart was Joe Issa El-Khoury, who was not an expert on maritime disputes, but was a wonderful interlocutor who helped bring the mediation to a close. “says Hof, who also spoke about the roles of Major General Abdul Rahman Shehitli and Deputy Chief of Staff, Brigadier General Joseph Sarkis, considered them to be” a professional and legal team that impressed us during the meetings that brought us together. “. And with the same description, Hoff addressed the Israeli team that was led by “Ambassador Oded Eran, who served as Israel’s ambassador to Jordan and the European Union.”

In the same article, Hove considered that “our efforts would not have taken off if Hezbollah had opposed them”, recalling the words of the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, in which he said that “the Lebanese government must exercise all diplomatic means and legal to protect their rights in the exclusive economic zone “, and that His words” did not convey any threat or violence. “

Hove then returns to the presentation of what Milevsky did, who seems to be the owner of the idea of ​​the line dividing the “disputed” area on the southern maritime boundary, which extends over an area of ​​866 square kilometers, and gives to Lebanon about 500 square kilometers, compared to about 360 square kilometers for “Israel.” Hof explains the opinion of Milevsky, who considered that “no single formula is adapted to the two parties in conflict”, and that “he was confused as to what should be proposed, because both parties defended their ideas insistently.” So, “Milevsky performed a calculation and drew a specific line, to avoid arguing about the proprietary part of the rocks at the base of the Ras Naqura rocks: Rosh Ha-Nikra, an area that was never cleared for the purpose of demarcation of the rocks. boundaries, the armistice line or the blue line, but he began by drawing his line 3 miles away. (4.82,803 kilometers) from the coast ». The Milevsky line crossed the Cypriot line by 60 percent from the Israeli-Cypriot intersection to the Lebanese-Cypriot intersection, leaving a percentage of more than 55 percent for Lebanon.

According to Hof, this idea was more “attractive” than the proposal to divide the region equally, indicating that “Israel was ready to accept the settlement line on the condition that Lebanon accept, but accepting the latter is the trouble”. Hove added that “President Mikati wanted to say yes, but noted that he needed a ministerial consensus, calling for the issue to be raised with various political parties that were not opposed. He also requested that “the opposition team at that time headed by Hariri be informed, and there were no objections except President Fouad Siniora insisted that the United Nations be the mediator,” but we replied that “the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has no role in maritime affairs outside territorial waters “(the maritime economic zone is many times larger than territorial waters, not beyond one dimension. Its limits on the high seas are 12 nautical miles).

Huff: “Israel” refused to negotiate at United Nations headquarters

Hof revealed that “Mikati did not consult Minister Gebran Bassil, who was making speeches that confused the demand for the exclusive economic zone in Lebanon and national borders, which can only be amended by Parliament. In the end, I had to tell Minister Bassil in Washington that Lebanon does not have a national border with its southern neighbor, and that the United States’ proposed maritime separation line, such as the Blue Line, would be temporary in nature until Lebanon e Israel negotiate borders and normalize relations. Bassil realized my point of view and would have supported the agreement if Mikati had put it to a vote in the cabinet, but this never happened.

At the end of the article, and before admitting the failure of the mediation he led, Hof said that “the Milevsky line and not Hove did not register any progress despite all the rounds, but in the end the negotiations began at the United Nations headquarters. , which was rejected by Israel for years. “