The sight of Lebanese and Israeli officials sitting at the same table for direct negotiations under U.S. sponsorship has ignited a battle in Lebanon under the headline: abolishing the Israel Boycott Law.
Positions in this battle intersect with a paradox produced by direct negotiations: the state negotiates officially, while the Lebanese citizen remains threatened with prosecution if they engage in similar contact.
While calls have intensified in political and media circles to reconsider the law issued in 1955—up to and including its repeal or amendment—parliamentary realities indicate that no actual legislative path in this direction has yet begun.
In contrast, movement has been recorded in the opposite direction, represented by a draft law submitted by MP Osama Saad on March 31 to expand the scope of criminalization in an unprecedented manner.
The proposal stipulates banning commercial, financial, media, cultural, and intellectual dealings with Israel, criminalizing all forms of political and diplomatic contact with it, and goes as far as considering any violation “high treason.”
MP Jimmy Jabbour of the “Strong Lebanon” bloc confirms that the issue of abolishing the Israel Boycott Law “has not yet been raised within Parliament,” and that the proposal received from MP Osama Saad “revolves around tightening, not repeal.”
Jabbour added in remarks to Alhurra that the boycott law “constitutes one of the leverage cards Lebanon possesses, and it is better to retain it for advanced stages of any negotiations,” considering that its repeal could be “part of a settlement or future peace treaty, not a preceding step.”
A State Negotiates… A Citizen Is Held Accountable
While following the file, a question raised by Lebanese citizens emerged: how can the Lebanese state enter into direct negotiations with Israel while a citizen or private institution remains subject to accountability if they engage in similar contact?
Reviewing past milestones shows that official negotiations between Lebanon and Israel are not new.
Lebanon entered into the 1949 armistice agreement, then the May 17, 1983, agreement, the April 1996 understanding, the arrangements linked to UN Resolution 1701 after the 2006 war, the maritime border demarcation agreement in 2022, and direct negotiations in 2026.
Constitutional expert Saeed Malek explains that “positive laws, whether the Israel Boycott Law or the Lebanese Penal Code, are not applied to the head of state during the exercise of his mandate, and therefore the president of the republic cannot be considered in violation of the Israel Boycott Law.”
Malek explains to Alhurra that “the president, under Article 60 of the constitution, cannot be prosecuted while in office except for high treason or violation of the constitution, according to a special mechanism stipulated in Law No. 13/1990, which requires a parliamentary petition approved by two-thirds of members of Parliament to accuse the president of either of these crimes.”
Voices Calling for Review
Calls to review the law are no longer marginal. MP Fouad Makhzoumi was among the first to call on the Minister of Justice to suspend the law, considering that the text no longer aligns with the new phase.
Dr. Ghassan Abu Diab, director of the Center for Democracy for Political and Strategic Studies, believes that “holding direct meetings between Lebanon and Israel makes the continued criminalization of contact illogical,” considering that “the law is political in nature rather than judicial.”
Abu Diab told Alhurra that “the law has repercussions on Lebanese at home and abroad, depriving some Lebanese of returning to their country, including members of the Lebanese Jewish community as well as opponents of the corrupt political system allied with terrorism.” He stressed that “Lebanon can benefit from the Israeli experience economically and technologically, especially since Israel is among the strongest economies in the world and one of the most advanced countries in several fields.”
Journalist Tony Boulos also believes that the law no longer aligns with the current Lebanese reality, noting that it was created in a different political and economic era.
Boulos added in remarks to Alhurra that “the current global economy is based on multinational companies and intertwined interests and investments, therefore this law constitutes an obstacle to Lebanese economic activity, in addition to the difficulty of verifying the backgrounds of shareholders in global companies.”
He stressed that the criterion for hostility “should be harming Lebanon’s interests, not targeting a specific state,” noting that the law “has been used politically and arbitrarily, leading to the prosecution or prevention of thousands of Lebanese from returning to their country on charges of communicating with Israelis.”
In a notable external indicator, U.S. lawmakers sent a letter last March to U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, calling for pressure to suspend laws criminalizing contact between Lebanese and Israelis, considering that they hinder the implementation of UN Resolution 1701 and increase the risks of miscalculation across the border.
The Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom reported Wednesday that Israel wants Lebanon to abolish the law that prohibits recognizing it or holding meetings with it.
In this context, Abu Diab stressed that actual pressure in this regard “comes from the Lebanese diaspora and figures friendly to Lebanon calling for openness.”
No Ready Parliamentary Base
Despite the rising debate, contacts conducted by Alhurra with MPs from major blocs show that the issue remains far from any legislative initiative.
Charles Jabbour, head of media at the Lebanese Forces party, explained that the issue has not been raised within the “Strong Republic” bloc, and that “any official position first requires a clear draft law within Parliament.”
Jabbour pointed out that “the current discussion is still media-driven,” and that such files “are usually opened in advanced stages of negotiations, not at their beginning.”
A responsible source in the Kataeb Party said that “the current priority is stopping the war, restoring stability, ensuring withdrawal, the return of prisoners, halting aerial sorties, and achieving state sovereignty by restricting arms to the authority of the Lebanese state.”
The source added that talk of abolishing the Israel Boycott Law or any steps related to economic normalization “is premature at this stage.”
MP Najat Aoun also considers that “any discussion about the law should await the results of negotiations, not be decided in advance.”
Boulos links the absence of parliamentary initiatives to abolish the law to what he describes as a “culture of intellectual intimidation” practiced by Hezbollah.
How Is the Law Repealed?
Malek explains that repealing the Israel Boycott Law can only occur through a new law, via one of two paths: a draft law from the government approved by the Council of Ministers and referred to Parliament, or a proposal submitted by one or more MPs.
The text is then referred to the relevant parliamentary committees and subsequently to the general assembly for a vote.
Constitutionally, repeal does not require an exceptional majority, as it is an ordinary law; it suffices to meet quorum and secure a majority of voters.
Politically, however, the path appears far more complex than constitutional texts. Boulos notes that “the number of MPs from the core resistance forces in Lebanon—represented by Hezbollah, the Amal Movement, and the Progressive Socialist Party—is not sufficient alone to block legislation, while the most prominent obstacle remains the role of Speaker Nabih Berri in managing the parliamentary agenda.”
A Law from Another Era
Lebanon adopted the boycott law on June 23, 1955, as part of the prevailing Arab boycott system at the time.
The law prohibits any natural or legal person from entering, directly or indirectly, into an agreement with entities or individuals residing in or affiliated with Israel or working in its interest, whether in commercial deals, financial operations, or any other transaction.
It also prohibits the entry of Israeli goods into Lebanon, their exchange, or trade, and punishes violators with temporary hard labor ranging from three to ten years.
In 1963, a special office was established under the supervision of the Ministry of Economy to follow up on the boycott, tasked with implementing the law’s provisions and monitoring companies, individuals, and products linked to Israel.
However, the political and regional environment in which this law was born has completely changed: Arab peace agreements, waves of normalization, open channels of communication, and economic and security transformations that imposed different priorities.
Application of the Law
The law has not remained ink on paper. A review conducted by Alhurra shows that it has been used, especially in recent years, in prosecutions, complaints, bans on artistic performances, and scrutiny of commercial deals.
In 2022, Bishop Moussa Hage was prosecuted after entering Lebanon from Israel.
In February 2024, a lawyer filed a complaint before the military public prosecutor against artist Nancy Ajram over what he considered a meeting with an Israeli blogger.
In May of the same year, a lawyer filed complaints against Lebanese media figures who conducted interviews with Israeli speakers during journalistic coverage.
In August 2025, William Noun, the brother of one of the victims of the Beirut port explosion, was summoned for investigation following a lawsuit accusing him of violating the law by allegedly expressing sympathy with Israel after a speech marking the fifth anniversary of the explosion.
Pending the results of the negotiations and a decision on the fate of the “Israel Boycott Law,” Lebanon appears stuck between two parallel tracks: diplomacy negotiating abroad, and legislation punishing at home.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
