Lebanon’s 1955 Israel boycott law: Why is the US raising it now?

Report by Lara El Hachem, English adaptation by Karine Keuchkerian

Washington is no longer limiting its demands to disarming Hezbollah and dismantling its military infrastructure. Its position now extends to changing the mindset of hostility toward Israel.

During a phone call with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised Lebanon’s 1955 Israel Boycott Law, arguing that it obstructs efforts to achieve peace.

The U.S. move comes amid a complaint filed against Lebanon’s Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh Moawad, over alleged communication with Israel’s ambassador to the United States. 

However, the issue extends beyond the ambassador’s case to the broader legal framework governing the state of hostility between Lebanon and Israel.

But what exactly does Lebanese law criminalize when it comes to dealing with Israel?

The Lebanese Constitution makes no mention of Israel and does not use the term “enemy.” The 1955 Israel Boycott Law, meanwhile, falls within the framework of the trade and economic boycott adopted at the time as part of the Arab commitment to Arab League resolutions.

Lebanon’s Penal Code, on the other hand, criminalizes acts associated with dealing with the enemy, including espionage and communication, without explicitly naming Israel. 

Over the years, however, official and ministerial statements have classified Israel as an enemy, serving as a reference in this context.

Any move to change this legal framework would therefore raise the question of amending the Boycott Law and the Penal Code in Parliament. For now, however, no such proposals appear to be on the horizon, even among parliamentary blocs that do not oppose peace with Israel.

Parliamentary sources say any step in this direction must be coordinated with the president and the prime minister.

Washington, however, is pushing for the normalization of relations between the two countries on multiple fronts. Most recently, Rubio urged Aoun to establish direct coordination between the Lebanese and Israeli armies.

Military sources told LBCI that the Lebanese army generally opposes direct communication while Israeli attacks and occupation continue. 

The army will convey its position to the relevant parties at this month’s military meeting with U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida, if asked about the matter. 

However, the Lebanese army remains subject to decisions made by the country’s political authorities.

For now, the Lebanese military delegation is heading to Tampa regardless of whether the Israeli delegation participates, while the future of negotiations remains uncertain.