Does the 1955 Lebanese law on Israel’s boycott cover only economic exchanges? In his column published on 11 November byNida Al-WatanSalah Machnuk defends this reading and challenges its use against political or media communications. However, the legal text contains a broader formula than commercial and financial transactions alone. Between the initial economic objective, the drafting of the ban and its implementation, the debate deserves a precise reading.
Salah Machnuk’s Thesis
On page 3 of the newspaper, Machnouk distinguishes the political judgment on contact with Israelis from its criminal characterization. It considers that a communication without intelligence assistance or a commercial relationship does not by itself fall within the prohibition. His reasoning is based on the economic reasons of the text, several articles on goods and the attachment of the boycott office to the Ministry of Economy.
It therefore favours a restrictive interpretation rather than an immediate abrogation campaign, which it considers politically counterproductive. This is a chronicler’s argument, not a judicial decision. Its position is not sufficient to establish the legality of an interview, meeting or negotiation.
Article 1 does not stop at trade
Thelaw of 23 june 1955reproduced by the Legal Information Centre of the Lebanese University, was published in the Official Journal of 29 June. His statement of reasons rightly invokes the economic blockade and the need to organize responsibility and sanctions related to the boycott.
Butarticle 1prohibits agreements concluded directly or through intermediary with persons or bodies resident in Israel, of his nationality or acting on his behalf or in his interest, where their object relates to commercial, financial or, in translation, « any other transaction, whatever its nature ».
The latter form is part of the text. Documentary reading cannot therefore stop at the first two categories. Conversely, this finding does not alone resolve what constitutes an agreement or transaction in a concrete situation. The scope of the words used and the elements of a possible infringement remain questions of legal interpretation.
A different legal reading
Questioned on 13 May 2026 byAl-Araby Al-Jadeedin an article on relations between the Lebanese media and Israeli interlocutors, lawyer Jad Tohmé, a professor at the Lebanese University, presents a broader framework. It links this matter to the 1955 Act and also to the provisions of the Penal Code concerning relations with the enemy. According to his analysis, judicial practice is not limited to trade.
Tohmé, however, describes a difficulty of qualification: to distinguish the exercise of freedom of expression and the profession of journalist from conduct which may be regarded as prohibited cooperation. In particular, he stressed the question of the direct or indirect advantage that Israel could derive from an exchange or its use. This analysis, prior to Machnuk’s chronicle, is not a response to it or a judgment on all interviews.
An economic office, a wider debate
The official presentation of theboycott office by the Ministry of Economyconfirms its administrative connection and monitoring missions. She also referred to the transfer of offences to military justice. The existence of an economic administration informs the organisation of the scheme; it does not replace the reading of its provisions.
Three levels must therefore remain distinct: the opinion on the appropriateness of the boycott, the scope of the current text and the qualification of a particular act. Machnuk’s column revives the first debate and proposes a response to the second. The third requires established facts and a legal analysis specific to the file. No general verdict on political or journalistic contacts can be inferred from this only controversy.
Illustration: Beirut, photograph by Jo Kassis / Pexels. No court events represented.
Comments