Reactions

There are several problems with the resolution, which Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres has openly said is "favourable to Israel" and "justifies the stance Israel has adopted since the start." Following its passage on 11 August 2006, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor added that "we have the diplomatic advantage." The full text is at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4785963.stm

Indeed, while Israel has accepted the resolution, the Lebanese government has done so with reservations related to the absence of any condemnation of Israeli destruction in Lebanon, and lack of clarity about Lebanese prisoners held by Israel and the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms.

Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said his organisation will "abide" by the ceasefire called for in the resolution, and "will not be an obstacle" in the way of its approval, but called it "unjust and unfair."

Arab states such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, have reiterated the stands of the Lebanese government and Hezbollah. The resolution "lacks balance because it did not adequately take into consideration the interests of Lebanon, its unity, security, and stability," said Gulf Cooperation Council chief Abdulrahman al-Attiyah.

Critiquing the resolution

- The resolution expresses "its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006…"

So it accepts Israel's claim that Hezbollah started this round of violence, not the underlying issues such as occupied territory, Lebanese prisoners, and regular Israeli military flights over Lebanon, or the increasing number of media reports alleging that Israel had been planning to attack Lebanon for over a year, and that the US and UK knew about it.

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/Invasion/tabid/330/Default.aspx

- The resolution mentions "hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons," without specifying that the vast majority of the deaths, injuries, infrastructural damage and internally displaced persons are Lebanese.

In fact, there is no criticism whatsoever of Israel for its disproportionate actions and war crimes that have resulted in a humanitarian disaster in Lebanon.

- The resolution emphasises "the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers." What about Lebanese grievances? While the resolution says the Israeli soldiers must be released unconditionally, it talks simply of "encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel." Info on the Lebanese prisoners is at:

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/Prisoners/tabid/321/Default.aspx

- The resolution fails to call for an immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Instead, it calls on Israel to withdraw "at the earliest." This term is far too vague.

Furthermore, "upon full cessation of hostilities," the resolution "calls upon the government of Lebanon and Unifil…to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel."

There is a specific order here which does not favour Lebanon. Israel is only required to withdraw once Lebanon and Unifil deploy, but Lebanon and Unifil can only deploy once hostilities end in full. This leaves the possibility of a prolonged Israeli presence in Lebanon.

For example, though the Lebanese government on 7 August unanimously agreed to deploy 15,000 troops to the south, UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown told the BBC it might take a month before a joint UN-Lebanese force was fully in place, and the secretary-general's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said that as of 15 August, "we have no formal specific commitments from any troop contributors."

- Another factor contributing to the possibility of a prolonged Israeli presence is that the resolution calls for "the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." Thus unlike Hezbollah, Israel is not required to cease all attacks, but only those that are deemed offensive. This is open to interpretation and abuse.

In fact, Israel has broken the ceasefire several times by killing and wounding Hezbollah fighters. They were "all…acts of self-defence," says an army spokesman, even though according to him, his soldiers short first. The Hezbollah fighters simply "tried to approach." Israel can, and has, attempted to justify just about anything under the pretext of self-defence, and this resolution allows it to do so.

- The resolution calls for "the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that…there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state," and says that "there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon."

Without guarantees of security for Lebanon, which this resolution does not provide, it is dangerous to disarm the only military apparatus capable of defending the country.

Indeed, the resolution calls for the strengthening of Unifil "to take all necessary action" to help the Lebanese government "exercise its authority" throughout the country and "ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind," but does not detail Unifil's role in the event of an Israeli attack, and proposes nothing to stop Israeli territory being used for hostile actions.

This scenario also holds the specter of civil war, especially as Hezbollah's popularity is much higher now than before Israel's onslaught, and the issue of its disarmament has always been deeply divisive in Lebanon. However, a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official has said that if Hezbollah is not disarmed, his country "will return to war."

As Palestinian militias are also implicitly called on to disarm, the resolution leaves Palestinian refugees vulnerable to Israeli aggression or Lebanese instability, as they have been in the past.

- The resolution takes "due note of the proposals made in the [Lebanese government's] seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area." What does this mean?

Also, the resolution "requests the secretary general to develop, in liaison with relevant international actors and the concerned parties, proposals…for delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including by dealing with the Shebaa farms area." Thus Israel is given a say over territory that it acknowledges is not its own. Info on the territory is at:

http://www.arabmediawatch.com/amw/CountryBackgrounds/Lebanon/TheShebaaFarms/tabid/173/Default.aspx

Chances of success

Besides the problems in the resolution's text, actions on the ground since its passing do not bode well for its success. The day after (two days before the ceasefire began), Israel said it tripled the number of its troops in Lebanon to 30,000, and warned that the expanded ground operation could last for weeks and extend to the strategically important Litani River, which runs up to 30 kilometres from the border.

Two days after the ceasefire took effect, Israeli army chief Dan Halutz said his troops could remain in Lebanon for months.

Israel continues to maintain an air and sea blockade of Lebanon, violating the resolution, which calls for the "reopening airports and harbours." Israel has also banned car travel in southern Lebanon, and said it has killed and wounded several Hezbollah fighters since the ceasefire began. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has vowed to resist any continued Israeli presence in Lebanon.

Perhaps most ominous are the words of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the Knesset (parliament): "I know that the leaders of this organisation will go underground and disseminate. These people will not be left alone. We will continue pursuing them anywhere, all the time, and we do not intend to apologise or ask anyone's permission."

There are wiser words from Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, who says the resolution "is only a beginning. If the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is not relaunched, we will not see any lasting stability in Lebanon. The Europeans understand this. One can however ask oneself whether the US shares this opinion. There is a tendency over there to consider the situation (in Lebanon) as another element in their war on terror. You cannot defeat terrorism if you do not resolve the conflicts and humiliations that the people involved have suffered."