|
|
By Ted Belman
August 7, 2006
Prior to the current resolution being tabled, the central issues was whether there should be one resolution or two. The US wanted one only which would provide a robust international force to disarm Hezbollah. The US has now accepted France's formulation of a two-resolution process and keeps reiterating that a strong international force is coming. But is it?
The only reference to the international force in the draft resolution provides as follows:
OP10. Expresses its intention, upon confirmation to the Security Council that the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel have agreed in principle to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above, and subject to their approval, to authorize in a further resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter the deployment of a U.N. mandated international force to support the Lebanese armed forces and government in providing a secure environment and contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;
There is nothing here about the international force disarming Hezbollah. So in effect the Lebanese Army is expected to implement the terms of the ceasefire and the international force is only there to assist them. This is a huge comedown and it only comes after Israel and Lebanon agree "in principle to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above, and subject to their approval." A robust international and independent force will never materialize. If it were really coming as promised, it would have been described in more detail then simply to say it will "support the Lebanese armed forces."
Paragraph 6. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements: (What about Hezballah?)
- strict respect by all parties for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Israel and Lebanon;
- full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;
- delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Chebaa farms area;
- security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security forces and of UN mandated international forces deployed in this area;
There is a problem here. The Lebanese army will include Hezbollah: therefore the army shouldn't be south of the Litani. That should be left to the international force only.
- full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;
- deployment of an international force in Lebanon, consistent with paragraph 10 below;
- establishment of an international embargo on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government;
- elimination of foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;
- provision to the United Nations of remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel?s possession;
Just how difficult do you think it will be to agree if only in principle on these issues with Hezbollah calling the shots?
In this regard, Der Spiegel interviewed Lebanese President Emile Lahoud:
SPIEGEL: Please explain your relationship to Hezbollah. What do you think of Hassan Nasrallah?
Lahoud: Hezbollah enjoys utmost prestige in Lebanon, because it freed our country. All over the Arab world you hear: Hezbollah maintains Arab honor, and even though it (Hezbollah) is very small, it stands up to Israel. And of course Nasrallah has my respect.
SPIEGEL: The United Nations want to defuse the problem through a massive deployment of international troops in southern Lebanon.
Lahoud: That is an old proposal, which is hardly achievable. As long as the conflict between Lebanon and Israel remains unresolved, no international force will help, however large it may be. The problems smoulder on: the undetermined status of the Schebaa Farms, the Lebanese prisoners in Israel and above all the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.
SPIEGEL: Why the Palestinians?
Lahoud: We have today around half a million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, their birth rate is three times higher than the Lebanese. That is a time bomb. It is the basic problem of our country, it led to the outbreak of civil war in 1975 and still remains unsolved today. Everybody today is talking about UN resolution 1559, but nobody mentions resolution 194, which recognizes the Palestinians' right of return (to Israel). Lebanon is small and can?t integrate the Palestinians.
There you have it: What you see is what you get.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
