Repealing the Israel Boycott Law and Its Demons

The US ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, has awakened sleeping demons by proposing the repeal of the law boycotting Israel. Such a proposal is enough for the heavyweights of the Iranian axis to seize upon it, mobilize, and unleash storms of outrage, condemnation, appeals to visceral passions, and accusations of treason, far removed from any rational discussion of the law’s nature, usefulness, and relevance in light of the changes that have occurred since its adoption.

As a reminder, the Israel Boycott Law is an Arab-Lebanese piece of legislation enacted on June 23, 1955. It criminalizes any economic, financial, or contractual dealings, as well as any form of communication, with Israel. Violators face prison sentences of three to ten years and fines ranging from 5,000 to 40,000 Lebanese pounds, in addition to the confiscation of goods and means of transportation.

It is also worth recalling that this law is no longer enforced to the letter, either in Lebanon or in Arab countries. This has become particularly apparent since the Arab-Israeli conflict took a new turn, notably following the agreement between the Lebanese government and the Israeli state to delimit their maritime boundaries and end the maritime dispute between the two countries. Syria, too, found itself compelled to negotiate with Israel, as did the Palestinian Authority following the Oslo Accords, not to mention the Camp David Accords, the Wadi Araba Treaty, and, subsequently, the broad range of Abraham Accords.

Does this mean the law should be reconsidered, with a view to retaining, amending, or repealing it, should the overriding national interest so require?

Would such a decision require coordination with Arab countries, or is it an inherently sovereign matter that can be decided without Arab consensus or consultation? Or does merely raising the question amount to high treason?

Before seeking answers, we must examine Lebanon’s seemingly intractable predicament, with hopes of finding a way out through direct negotiations with Israel struggling to materialize. Israel continues its attacks aimed at wiping out villages in southern Lebanon, after occupying them and displacing their inhabitants. At the same time, Hezbollah persists in holding Lebanon hostage to the interests of its Iranian overlord, determined to destroy the state and the Constitution under the pretext of an impotent “resistance” that it has replaced with all manner of activities outside the law: weapons, smuggled US dollars, not to mention drugs, counterfeit medicines, and an endless list of other illicit activities.

We must also consider the selective and malicious use of the Israel Boycott Law, which has long been enforced on demand, first under the Syrian occupation and then during the reign of the “divine party,” to target opponents and even unwanted rivals. There is no shortage of examples involving politicians, journalists, and intellectuals whose only offense was failing to win the approval of the powers that be.

Answers must therefore be sought, while acknowledging the emotional and psychological dimension that leads broad segments of Lebanese society to reject, almost unconsciously, any discussion of the issue. For them, Israel is the eternal enemy, and any attempt at normalization or peace with it is futile.

This attitude nevertheless has its justifications, given the experiences and evidence accumulated since the emergence of the project to seize the land of Palestine and turn it into a national home for Jews from around the world, accompanied by an alarming appetite for expansion, particularly under the current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet this must not override common sense, according to the principle: “If you want to be obeyed, ask only for what is possible.”

In Lebanon’s present circumstances, what is possible is limited, but it provides a basis on which to build. This was the reasoning behind the response to Ambassador Michel Issa: repealing the Israel Boycott Law and lifting the penalties for contact with Israel require parliamentary approval. Such approval will not be forthcoming before Israel withdraws, the occupied territories are recovered, displaced residents return, reconstruction takes place, and a peace agreement is reached that brings the state of hostility to a definitive end.

Giving up this law, which constitutes one of Lebanon’s sources of leverage, without obtaining concrete guarantees in return would open the door to additional Israeli demands, without corresponding steps to meet Lebanese demands.

Yet Hezbollah’s role cannot be overlooked. The party stands in the way of securing what Lebanon demands from Israel, solely to serve Iran and carry out its directives, allowing Tehran to safeguard its interests and improve its bargaining position in negotiations with the United States.

Until the Lebanese state can find its way out of this labyrinth, from which both Hezbollah and Israel benefit, the repeal of the boycott law will remain haunted by its demons. It will continue to serve as an instrument that both parties can exploit, as they do each other favors whenever their interests converge. At the expense, of course, of this beleaguered state.