Israeli Army definition of border retains Lebanese territories

An Israeli defense official told Associated Press on Friday that “the border fence, which juts out into Lebanon by a few hundred meters in some places, will not be moved, partly because it is too expensive to replace its sophisticated infiltration detection system.” Haaretz on Thursday quoted security sources as saying that the Army will redeploy to the “existing” border, “which does not correspond to the international border as it appears on the maps.”

There is only one internationally-recognized boundary between the two countries. It follows the original 1923 frontier drawn up and recorded in painstaking detail by the British and French mandatory authorities. Until 1949, the border existed on paper only: no boundary markers or fences were erected so as not to impede the cross-border movement of Arabs and Jews who had property on either side of the line. This equitable policy ended, however, following the 1948 Arab-Israel war. The 1949 Armistice Agreement decreed that the Armistice Demarcation Line, which separated the armed forces of each country, “shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.” In other words the original 1923 border. An Israel-Lebanon Mixed Armistice Commission was created to oversee the implementation of the agreement and monitor breaches.

In response to a request by the Lebanese government, the commission began demarcating the border on the ground with piles of white-washed stone, iron posts and notice boards.
The only stretch that remained unmarked was the final 5 kilometers before the Hasbani river in the east.

Frederic Hof, a leading authority on the Lebanon-Israel and Syria-Israel frontiers, told The Daily Star that the “internationally recognized” border followed the 1949 armistice line, “which... corresponds exactly to the 1923 Palestine-Lebanon boundary.” As such, there should be no argument over the theoretical delineation of the border. But there is the question of the frontier’s legitimacy in the eyes of Lebanon, Israel and the international community.

“‘International recognition’ in this case rests exclusively on the validity states are willing to accord to the 1949 armistice,” Hof said. Israel unilaterally abandoned the armistice agreement in June 1967 when its troops crossed the armistice line and captured the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan and the Sinai from Egypt. Although Lebanon had not participated in the 1967 war, Israel regarded its northern neighbor as a belligerent and consequently refused to recognize the armistice line between the two countries. With the 1923 mandate border no longer valid and the 1949 armistice line rejected, Israel’s position on the frontier is open to debate.

On the other hand, Israel’s arbitrary dismissal of the 1949 Armistice Agreement was never approved by the international community. “Lebanon and the UN have quite specifically rejected Israel's unilateral action and no nation, to the best of my knowledge, has ever endorsed Israel’s position. Therefore it seems to me that the 1949 armistice line still enjoys ‘international recognition,’” Hof said.
Thus, the “internationally recognized” border referred to in Resolution 425 behind which Israel is required to withdraw its troops is the 1949 line, which in turn exactly follows the 1923 mandate boundary. A senior UN official said that as far as UNIFIL was concerned the international border was the line that was crossed by Israeli troops in March 1978 during the first invasion of the country which led to Resolution 425. “Much of the original 1978 border fence is still there, a little dilapidated but there, and that is where the Israelis should withdraw to,” the official said.

The US Department of Defense maps in use by the peacekeepers contain a glaring irregularity which merely underlines the lack of consensus over the exact delineation of the border. On one of UNIFIL’s maps, the entire length of the western boundary, from the coast to a point 7 kilometers southeast of Bint Jbeil, is marked by a blank white space, with the notation “map sources irreconcilable.”

The blank line represents a distance of 45 kilometers and a width of 300 meters. This narrow band is of crucial strategic importance as much of it follows a ridge which drops steeply on the Israeli side of the border. Israel has pushed the border fence northward in two places along this stretch of the frontier, precisely to gain access to the high ground and prevent the Lebanese from dominating western Galilee. Bearing in mind that the international community ­ barring Israel ­ considers the international border as following the 1949 armistice line (which is recorded on the UNIFIL map) and further bearing in mind that this line follows the precisely notated 1923 mandate border, exactly which map sources does NIMA consider irreconcilable? Jennifer Lafley of NIMA told The Daily Star that the maps were classified Limited Distribution, meaning information on them remained within official Department of Defense channels. “For that reason, I cannot address your questions,” she said.
The NIMA map also differs slightly from the 1923 border in the central sector in which Israel has been accorded approximately 100,000 square meters of Lebanese territory opposite Markaba. This places a strategic hilltop with views overlooking northern Galilee firmly inside Israel. So where does NIMA obtain the “irreconcilable” political information for its map of the Lebanese-Israeli border? Certainly not from Lebanon. According to the 1989 Taif Accord, the government recognizes the 1949 armistice line as the “internationally recognized” border. Presumably, also not from the UN as UNIFIL is one of the recipients of NIMA’s cartographic efforts.

Could it be that NIMA’s map sources are “irreconcilable” because the Israeli Army offered their own interpretation of the border to the US Department of Defense? Israeli Army maps mark the existing de-facto frontier on the ground with a purple line. Without evidence this remains speculative although it gains a degree of plausibility when it is recalled that the Israelis have never been satisfied with their country’s northern border with Lebanon because of the strategic topographical disadvantages ­ especially along the western boundary. While the Israelis are not expected to lay claim to vast tracts of Lebanese territory, it is possible that some tinkering with the delineation of the border will be attempted.

If Israel withdraws its troops from the south within an arrangement with Lebanon and Syria, an agreement on the final delineation of the border can probably be achieved by basing it on the 1923 boundary.

Time has altered some of the original landmarks to describe the frontier ­ villages have expanded, paths and fences have disappeared. With a little compromise from both sides, these obstacles should be overcome relatively easily.

The difficulties will arise, however, if Israel chooses to withdraw its troops unilaterally.
The Israeli Army, which remains adamantly opposed to a unilateral withdrawal, will likely seek to retain every inch of defensible territory along the border that it feels it can get away with. In this event, Hizbullah’s mortars and rockets will presumably inform the Israeli Army whether it was successful or not.

1 – Daily star 27-3-2000.