This week’s agreement on Lebanon and Israel’s maritime border is good news in an area that has been problematic and controversial for a long time. The agreement establishes each country’s territorial waters, and determines their rights in the gas and oil fields within the larger eastern Mediterranean region. For the accord to succeed it must be interpreted as a broad consensus framework between Israel and Lebanon that may be referred to whenever there are points of differences between them. If there is discord over how many kilometers each country will be allotted from the waters of the Mediterranean, open-mindedness and a flexible execution of the maritime plan could ease any tension. It should not be viewed as the prelude to a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon, nor is it in some way a betrayal of the Palestinian people: Lebanon’s national interest is not the same as the Palestinian national interest. There are other important factors associated with this agreement. It is an assertion of Lebanese sovereignty because Lebanon gained space, water and natural resources. It is also a smart aspect of Lebanon’s foreign policy because Lebanon was able to settle a difficult border dispute without going to war. It is to be hoped that this maritime deal reduces the tension between Israel and Lebanon, and establishes a minimum degree of consensus on the essentials of Lebanese foreign policy. Some groups are already attempting to reject the maritime pact, but they must be resisted. It would be detrimental to Lebanon’s national security to withdraw from the agreement. Much effort has been spent on achieving it, and the political forces opposed to it must not be allowed to delay the election of a new president because of it. That would consign Lebanon to a political quagmire that would take a long time to overcome. It should not be viewed as the prelude to a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon, nor is it in some way a betrayal of the Palestinian people. Maria Maalouf Despite this US-brokered agreement, many tough questions remain about Lebanese-American relations. The US is still worried about Iran’s influence in Lebanon. While those worries are justified, the US must appreciate what Lebanon has achieved; it would have been politically impossible for Lebanon to reach such an accord with Israel without defeating Iran’s machinations. Iran is always pushing for instability in Lebanon, with its plans to maintain a state of chaos there. Shamefully, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, is claiming that it forced Israel to accept its demands and offer concessions on the maritime agreement. Hezbollah maliciously tried to sabotage the negotiations. They failed because the lies they disseminated were not advantageous for Lebanon’s security. In achieving this deal, Lebanon has ended a political disagreement that perennially frustrated US foreign policy. America also has to help Lebanon define how to implement this agreement, and the next steps in its relationship with Israel. This deal will not solve every issue in the Middle East, but it should encourage a new American effort to end the war in Syria, and reduce tension between Israel and the Palestinians. The agreement should be viewed in a simple way. It is not a doctrine in Lebanon’s foreign policy. It is a pragmatic way for Lebanon to tackle its external foreign relations. The agreement must preempt any likelihood of a future war between Lebanon and Israel. Again, this will not be easy because there are forces in Lebanon that want to instigate armed clashes with Israel. Finally, America, Europe, Israel, and Lebanon have all to work hard to enforce this maritime deal. The whole world has to endorse this agreement. This will enhance the state’s legitimacy in Lebanon, and enhance Lebanon’s stature in the world.