[LCM Articles] Inside 1701: As Full of Pro-Israeli Holes as Swiss Cheese

[Loai Naamani]

Weekend Edition
August 19 / 20, 2006 

As Full of Pro-Israeli Holes as Swiss Cheese
Inside 1701: What the UN Security Council's Ceasefire Resolution Actually
Says
By VIRGINIA TILLEY

What is really portended by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which set
the terms for the present ceasefire in Lebanon? The very fact that it was
signed at all might be encouraging, but no one is sure what its actual
impact will be and most are sceptical. For Israel, will it secure the
outcome its leaders are (rather desperately) claiming they have gained by
this dreadful war - i.e., ultimate disarmament of Hizbullah? For Lebanon and
Hizbullah, will it secure Israel's withdrawal? Either way, will it last?

More important than its precise provisions are facts on the ground. On one
side, Hizbullah is "victorious" in defeating Israel's military ambitions,
but much of Lebanon itself is in ruins; peace for a traumatized population
is a matter of urgency. On the other side, the Israeli military is chastened
and Jewish Israel is shocked; more fruitless loss of soldiers' lives has
become political anathema. These factors may cause the guns to stay silent
where the resolution itself could not.

But a close look at Resolution 1701 is still important because it says a
great deal about the politics of the moment. In practice, any Security
Council (SC) resolution is only as effective in attaining its goals as the
collective political will and capacity of its veto-wielding members allow it
to be. Some resolutions reflect more consensus than others. Many confront
limitations of the SC to enforce them. Brooding divisions and chicanery
within the SC can instill loopholes or debilitating contradictions.

Even short-and-sweet SC resolutions (a fraction the length of 1701) can be
manipulated to create a crucial loophole. One notorious example is SC
Resolution 242, passed just after the 1967 war when Israel had occupied the
Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the entire Sinai
Peninsula. Hard Israeli lobbying famously managed to extract the crucial
"the" from the English translation of the otherwise blunt provision,
"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from [the] territories occupied in the
recent conflict." "Territories" in English is a general term, and could mean
"some territories". "The territories" would mean "all territories". Israel's
maneuver on the definite article was therefore not sophistic: it has allowed
Israel to claim, to this day, that it satisfied its obligations to comply
with 242 by withdrawing from the Sinai (in 198 1), while retaining control
of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights. (In all the other official
UN languages, Resolution 242 still says "the territories", but apparently
Israel is accountable to international law only in English.)

Brought under the microscope, what exactly does Resolution 1701 say? A
line-by-line analysis reveals that it is as full of pro-Israeli holes as a
Swiss cheese. It also has two significant pro-Lebanese holes. But the
over-all weight of the resolution indicates that Israel holds the crucial
card: whether and when to withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory. Close
study of the resolution also explains why Israel rushed troops across the
border in the days immediately preceding its passage. Knowing the text,
having consulted with the Americans about its details, the Israeli
government needed its troops in place to make it work. The loopholes also
suggest that the present ceasefire, presently welcomed by two exhausted
sides, may hold only a few weeks.

"The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous resolutions on Lebanon, in particular resolutions
425 (1978), 426 (1978), 520 (1982), 1559 (2004), 1655 (2006), 1680 (2006)
and 1697 (2006), as well as the statements of its president on the situation
in Lebanon, in particular the statements of 18 June, 2000, of 19 October,
2004, of 4 May 2005, of 23 January 2006 and of 30 July 2006;"

Security Council resolutions always open with reference to relevant prior
resolutions, to establish their juridical context. This one establishes
Resolution 1701 within the legal history of prior resolutions on Lebanon. It
does not place the conflict in larger regional context, however, which
includes Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. Israeli
violence in enforcing that occupation is certainly intertwined with
Hizbullah's ideology, popular legitimacy, and its ongoing militancy, as well
as Lebanese government weakness. In the penultimate paragraph, the
Resolution does cite the need for a comprehensive Middle East peace process
based on Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.

"Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities
in Lebanon and in Israel since Hezbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006,
which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides,
extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of
internally displaced persons;"

This paragraph offers the first of the Resolution's two empirical
falsehoods. The conflict has not "caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on
both sides." It caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries on one
side and dozens on the other. Inscribing this false equation into the text
might seem a casual twist of language, but it is an ominous footprint
indicating the resolution's direction: endorsing Israel's fictional
narrative of symmetrical suffering bodes ill for the agenda of later
clauses. (It also does no service to historians of UN interventions, who
doubtless will unthinkingly reproduce this falsehood for decades to come).

In similar vein, the paragraph traces the "cause" of the conflict to a
Hizbullah action, described as an "attack on Israel", instead of Israel's
decision to respond to a minor border skirmish with a pre-planned and
massive assault on Lebanon's entire population and infrastructure.[1] This
interpretation openly reproduces the Israel-Washington-London axis of
revisionist myths about how the conflict started. It also suggests that the
Lebanese government and Hizbullah were willing to compromise on this
language, probably on grounds that capitulating to Israel's version of
events would be compensated by later substantive clauses that counterbalance
it. But, again, allowing the Security Council to inscribe empirical
falsehoods and Israel's version of events into international law is poor law
and poor planning. (The second instance of error, in Paragraph 8, is even
more worrisome .)

"Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time
emphasising 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;

Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the
efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners
detained in Israel;"

A prisoner exchange was the reason for Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli
soldiers, the event cited by Israel as the casus belli. The question of
prisoners is therefore hardly peripheral to this conflict. Yet the
Resolution here inscribes a starkly asymmetrical standing to Israeli and
Lebanese prisoners. Hizbullah's capture of Israeli prisoners is inscribed as
one of "the causes that have given rise to the current crisis". The Security
Council itself will therefore "address urgently" the plight of the two
"abducted" (captured) Israeli soldiers, by securing their "unconditional
release". By contrast, Lebanese prisoners held in Israel, from previous
incursions into Lebanon by Israel, are not admitted to be a causal factor.
Their plight is only a matter of "sensitivity", whose urgent settlement by
other actors (unnamed) will be "encouraged.&q uot; This formula makes the
Security Council itself responsible for the Israeli soldiers' release, while
leaving the release of Lebanese prisoners to present players - i.e., Israel.

"Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese prime minister and the commitment of
the government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority
over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such 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, welcoming also its
commitment to a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers,
equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request
in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from southern
Lebanon;"

As Israel has insisted that the Lebanese government assume sole authority
over Lebanese territory, this passage may seem friendly to Israel,
eliminating Hizbullah's military role and autonomy. Nevertheless, it
provides the first loophole favoring Lebanon, as the Lebanese government now
includes Hizbullah. "No authority other than that of the government of
Lebanon" will not be a problem for Hizbullah if it is part of that
government. (Indeed, the government could not have signed this resolution
without consulting with Hizbullah and getting a general go-ahead.) The
phrase, "no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon", will
not be a problem for Hizbullah, either, because the government is likely to
give that consent. Moreover, as Hizbullah members are already well diffused
into the Lebanese army, friendly cooperation between Hizbullah and the army
is already e vident and can be coordinated under the authority of the
central Lebanese government - which, again, includes Hizbullah.

Knowing all this, the central government itself does not face the unworkable
challenge of confronting Hizbullah's greater military and political force.
The logistics of integration, however, are clearly difficult. Fusing
Hizbullah's military wing into the Lebanese army is especially delicate, as
Hizbullah has jealously guarded its military secrets even from the
communities adjacent to its installations. Fusion might therefore have to be
managed by reconstituting Hizbullah's military wing as a branch or special
force of the army, to preserve its intelligence firewalls.

Simply "disarming" Hizbullah, however, is out of the question: no Lebanese
authority has the power to do that. Reflecting this reality, the government
of Lebanon has already redefined Hizbullah as a "resistance" group, not a
"militia", and therefore exempt from the provisions of Security Council
Resolution 1559 (which requires all "militias" to disarm). This maneuver
allows Lebanon's unity government to comply with Resolution 1559 by
"consenting" to Hizbullah's continuing to bear weapons - or at least, so the
government argues.

But a twist, embedded in the last phrase, undercuts Lebanon's achievement in
this paragraph. "Immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces" is phrasing
friendly to Lebanon's urgent desires. It is prefaced, however, with the
debilitating word "request". Given Israel's violation of international law
and the UN Charter in invading a neighboring state, the Security Council
should "demand" or "instruct" Israel to withdraw immediately, not "request"
it to do so. In this phrasing, Israel is not required to withdraw and the
Security Council is not charged with enforcing its withdrawal. This formula
therefore leaves Israel in charge of its own withdrawal. If Hizbullah
retains its arms, Israel would not consider itself obligated to withdraw.

"Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest;"

This short phrase is both vague and strange, not even grammatically complete
in English. "Act for" is foggy in English, connoting a general effort. The
French version also offers unspecified and passive constructions:
"Determined to act in such a way that this withdrawal happen as soon as
possible" ("Déterminé à agir de telle sorte que ce retrait intervienne le
plus tôt possible"). Even for a preface, where general formulas are normal,
this clause lacks both specificity and especially agency: the withdrawal
will simply happen. The lack of agency regarding any monitoring or
enforcement of Israel's withdrawal shapes the rest of the Resolution.

"Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the
Shebaa farms area;"

"Taking due note" offers formal recognition that this plan exists. But it
does not indicate that the Security Council endorses the seven-point plan,
nor does it clarify that the plan will comprise the basis for any further
discussions. (The Resolution's operative reference to the Shebaa farms, in
Paragraph 10, makes no mention of this plan.)

"Welcoming the unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on 7 August
2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in south Lebanon as
the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the
assistance of additional forces from Unifil as needed, to facilitate the
entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its
intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to
enable it to perform its duties;"

"As the Israeli army withdraws" implies a confused process whereby the
Israeli army will withdraw while the Lebanese army arrives. But the
sequencing is muddy. Is the Lebanese army to arrive while Israeli troops are
still in place, so that no vacuum of power occurs? Is the Lebanese army to
take over positions only as Israel withdraws from them? Is the Lebanese
army's arrival a sufficient condition for Israel's withdrawal, or is
Hizbullah's disappearance (impossible) also necessary? Again, it is left to
Israel to judge when to withdraw. It is easy to imagine that any Hizbullah
attack on Israeli troops, or even unspecified trouble for Israeli forces,
would give Israel a pretext to delay withdrawal.

"Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a permanent ceasefire and a
long-term solution to the conflict;

"Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to
international peace and security;

1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the
immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation
by Israel of all offensive military operations;"

In the key word "offensive," Paragraph 1 offers the lethal phrasing that
explains Israel's rush to gain ground in the days immediately preceding
passage of this resolution. Once holding substantial Lebanese territory,
Israel can define its military actions not as "offensive" but as defensive,
pending its withdrawal. But the conditions for its withdrawal must be
satisfactory to Israel; the Resolution establishes no external authority to
compel Israel's withdrawal or any sanctions if it does not.

Obviously, by international criteria regarding territorial aggression and
belligerent occupation, it is nonsense for Israel to be occupying Lebanon
while claiming not to be in an offensive military posture. But it has been
equal nonsense for nuclear-power Israel to describe its attack on Lebanon,
in the name of crushing a local guerrilla group, as a war for Israel's own
survival. In most diplomacy, Israel has also consistently denied that it is
in a condition of "belligerent occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Israel's capacity to claim any action as "defense" is well-established in
the diplomatic record.

"2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the government of Lebanon
and Unifil as authorised by paragraph 11 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;"

"[A]s that deployment begins" could suggest that Israel is supposed to
withdraw its forces immediately upon the entry of Lebanese and Unifil forces
into the region. But, again, "in parallel" is confusing: in parallel with
what? The mere arrival of Lebanese army forces? Or the effective replacement
(i.e., removal) Hizbullah forces from southern Lebanon? Since Hizbullah will
not imaginably be removed from southern Lebanon, "in parallel" could leave
Israel's forces in place, according to its own assessment of "parallel"
conditions, for weeks or months. (As noted, overwhelming domestic Israeli
pressure to withdraw from Lebanon may trump the plan suggested here.)

"3. Emphasises the importance of the extension of the control of the
government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the
provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the
relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full
sovereignty, so 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;"

Israel clearly wants Hizbullah to lose all capacity to launch attacks
against Israel. But since the Lebanese government can "consent" to
Hizbullah's remaining armed, as part of a newly centralized military
authority, this phrasing could serve both the government and Hizbullah. The
paragraph suggests that Hizbullah has agreed that any attack on Israel will
be made only with agreement by the Lebanese government and not on its own
sole authority as a party or resistance group. (However, Hizbullah has
already declared an exception: it reserves the right to attack Israeli
troops as long as they remain in Lebanon. Doubtless Hizbullah accurately
perceives the risks of the Resolution and its faith is likely to be low.)

Unifying the Lebanese government authority over foreign policy is not only
necessary to holding Lebanon together but is also an important evolution in
the state's integration. Historically, the Lebanese government has lacked
both the capacity and the interest necessary to disarm Hizbullah, a force
much more powerful than the state's own armed forces and that enjoys
significant legitimacy in Lebanon as the sole effective deterrent to Israeli
aggression. (Flagging in the post-Hariri era, its legitimacy has now been
enormously pumped up by Israel's ruinous invasion of the country.) Lebanon
is hardly unique in this weakness. Many weak states lack the capacity to
control armed groups operating from their territories (several African
states come to mind). They may even tacitly support the presence of such
groups, if those groups operate as extra-legal (and plausibly deniable)
instruments of the gove rnment's foreign policy.

But centralizing authority over foreign policy, especially to wage war or
launch attacks on other states, is a state-building project incumbent on all
nation-states. Hizbullah was brought into the government in the last
election; the next step would normally be fusion of its armed wing into the
state's armed forces. (We might recall that the precursor to the United
States federal system, the Confederation of the thirteen colonies, ran into
similar problems regarding Indian wars in the eighteenth century. New York's
wars with the Iroquois and Georgia's wars with the Cherokee, launched on
their own authority, drained the treasuries of the other states. The problem
contributed significantly to the thirteen states' willingness to adopt the
Constitution of 1789, which authorized only the federal government to govern
relations with the "Indian tribes".)

"4. Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line;

"5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous
relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and
political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized
borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement
of 23 March 1949;"

These clauses are nice but worrisomely vague. The term "full respect for the
Blue Line" suggests the mutual termination of incursions or cross-border
actions. But it does not specify how "full respect" is to be expressed - for
example, whether it would require Israel to terminate its low-altitude
flights over Lebanon, which have regularly broken the sound barrier over
southern Lebanese cities. Nor does it address the question of prisoners.

"6. Calls on the international community to take immediate steps to extend
its financial and humanitarian assistance to the Lebanese people, including
through facilitating the safe return of displaced persons and, under the
authority of the government of Lebanon, reopening airports and harbours,
consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, and calls on it also to consider
further assistance in the future to contribute to the reconstruction and
development of Lebanon;"

This paragraph might seem friendly to Lebanon, too, until we consider it in
context. First, it makes the international community financially responsible
for "reopening airports and harbours," rather than Israel, which wrecked
them. Israel has no responsibility at all, in this resolution, for providing
financial, logistical or any other help in reconstructing the rest of
Lebanon.

Second and more subtly, the paragraph actually confirms Israel's authority
to stall any such rebuilding, or selectively to impede it, since loopholes
in the rest of the resolution leave it up to Israel to determine when "the
authority of the government of Lebanon" has been truly imposed. By linking
Lebanon's reconstruction to paragraphs 14 and 15 (below), Paragraph 6
confirms that rebuilding Lebanon must not translate into Hizbullah's
resupplying and rebuilding its military capacity in the south. If Israel
deems that rebuilding is serving Hizbullah's military capacity (which it
doubtless will, as Hizbullah and the army will necessarily collaborate in
reconstructing the demolished cities, villages, and infrastructure in the
Shi'a south and Beirut suburbs), then the Israeli military can declare
itself authorized to stop or even bomb those reconstruction efforts. Since
Israel is occupyi ng southern Lebanon precisely to monitor this process, it
will be in position to halt the reconstruction at its discretion.

Aside from Hizbullah's arms, the phrase "under the authority of the
government of Lebanon" gives Israel another point of leverage. Even if
Hizbullah as a political party is involved in the rebuilding - which, again,
being well-embedded among the southern Shi'a, it will inevitably be - then
Israel can declare that the "authority of the government" has not been
effectively imposed. The Lebanese government might protest that argument on
grounds that Hamas is a legitimate Lebanese party. But Israel has similarly
rejected the presence of Hamas in the Palestinian government, and, like
Hamas, has declared Hizbullah a "terrorist organization". Israel would be
consistent in rejecting the Lebanese government's insistence that Hizbullah
must be considered a legitimate player and treating any involvement or
presence by Hizbullah as a failure to impose full Lebanese state auth ority.

"7. Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is
taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a
long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including
safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of
displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this
responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council;"

This paragraph focuses narrowly on urgent humanitarian concerns, which is
welcome and essential. But it does not compel Israel or anyone else to
pursue a "long-term solution". It only affirms that parties are responsible
for not acting in any way that would "adversely affect" the "search" for
one. (This phrasing is reminiscent of "peace process" language that calls on
Israel not to act in any way that will "prejudice final status talks"
regarding withdrawal from the Palestinian territories. Israel has roundly
ignored those calls for decades.)

"8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a
long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:

· Full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;"

"Respect" is inoperably vague: see above.

· "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
government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorised in paragraph 11, deployed
in this area;"

This clause makes the Lebanese government and UNIFIL responsible for
ensuring that Hizbullah is not re-armed.

"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;"

This clause provides the second serious distortion of history. The Taif
Agreement (1989, clause 2.1 A) and Resolution 1559 (paragraph 3) did not
call for disarming all "armed groups" but rather all "militias". It is
startling that the international community allowed this alteration of facts
(here, the diplomatic record). But its purpose is plain. Deliberate
misquotation of both agreements undercuts the Lebanese government's maneuver
cited earlier: to evade obligations to disarm Hizbullah by redefining
Hizbullah as a "resistance" organization.

"· No foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government;"

This subsection is friendly to the Lebanese government, implying that
Israeli forces cannot legally invade again. But the clause does not actually
go beyond the UN Charter and international law prohibiting exactly such
behavior, which Israel has violated repeatedly in Lebanon on grounds of
self-defense, so it does not really manifest as more robust here. Also,
Israel has in the past implicitly defined Hizbullah as "foreign forces" in
being an instrument of Iran, so it could conceivably declare the clause
violated and violate it itself.

"· No sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as
authorized by its government;"

This clause favors Israel, but it will also serve to strengthen the central
Lebanese government in the positive sense observed earlier. The problem is
the Lebanese government's capacity to enforce it, which is dubious. At what
degree of failure would Israel declare this condition violated? Major
rearmament of Hizbullah's southern positions? Or simply interception of a
single truck carrying Katyushas?

"· Provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in
Lebanon in Israel's possession;"

The clause seems to favor the Lebanese, who urgently need these maps.
However, it is formulated not as Israel's immediate obligation but as a
"principle or element" associated with a "long-term solution". Since Israel
understands a "long-term solution" only as the entire evaporation of
Hizbullah, providing the maps of land mines is left conditional on an
outcome not likely to emerge.

"9. Invites the secretary general to support efforts to secure as soon as
possible agreements in principle from the government of Lebanon and the
government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution
as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively
involved;"

Translation: The hapless Secretary General is charged with monitoring and
facilitating this mess of an agreement.

"10. Requests the secretary general to develop, in liaison with relevant
international actors and the concerned parties, proposals to implement the
relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and resolutions 1559 (2004) and
1680 (2006), including disarmament, and 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, and to
present to the Security Council those proposals within 30 days;"

Translation: The Secretary General is also charged with developing further
proposals. Disposition of the Shebaa farms area is left to later
negotiations, with no mention of the seven-point plan.

"11. Decides, in order to supplement and enhance the force in numbers,
equipment, mandate and scope of operations, to authorize an increase in the
force strength of Unifil to a maximum of 15,000 troops, and that the force
shall, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426
(1978):

a. Monitor the cessation of hostilities;

b. Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout
the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed
forces from Lebanon as provided in paragraph 2;

c. Coordinate its activities related to paragraph 11 (b) with the government
of Lebanon and the government of Israel;

d. Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian
populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;

e. Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the
establishment of the area as referred to in paragraph 8;

f. Assist the government of Lebanon, at its request, to implement paragraph
14;"

According to these provisions, UNIFIL will play an expanded role in
monitoring Hizbullah's disarmament, the Lebanese army's takeover, and the
country's reconstruction. The measure seems to provide Israel with a
guarantor of Hizbullah's marginalization, and the Lebanese government with a
friendly international force that can monitor and even oppose any Israeli
intervention. But the confusions and contradictions cited in earlier
passages indicate a crucial weakness for UNIFIL regarding these jobs.
Consider the dilemma: UNIFIL is charged with supporting the Lebanese army's
deployment in the south, although deployment is not clearly contingent on
Israel's withdrawal. UNIFIL must also prevent any rearmament by Hizbullah,
southern Lebanon's primary military power, although it has no military or
intelligence capacity to do. It will assist in securing "humanitarian access
to civilian populations& quot; and the return of refugees, but has no
authority to engage Israeli forces if Israel impedes those efforts. A more
unenviable position is difficult to imagine.

"12. Acting in support of a request from the government of Lebanon to deploy
an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the
territory, authorizes Unifil to take all necessary action in areas of
deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure
that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any
kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging
its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United
Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the
security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian
workers, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of
Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence;"

Recognizing UNIFIL's dilemma, the Resolution now seems to strengthen
UNIFIL's role. But read closely, it only loads UNIFIL with more unmanageable
duties. Since UNIFIL is based entirely in southern Lebanon, its primary
responsibility-to "ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for
hostile activities of any kind"-pertains solely to containing Hizbullah.
Regarding Israel, its charge "to protect civilians under imminent threat of
physical violence" seems to give it authority to repel Israeli attacks on
Lebanese civilians, but this role is undercut by two factors: (a) Israel's
standard claim that it hits civilians only by accident during necessary
military engagement with Hizbullah, such that it would reject UNIFIL's role
in repelling actions ostensibly aimed at military targets "using civilians
as shelter"; and (b) UNIFIL's obvious logistical inability to d o anything
about Israeli aggression of any kind. Since the rest of the resolution
provides multiple loopholes for Israeli aggression (e.g., redefining it as
"defense"), this clause sets up UNIFIL for failure to protect civilians.

Most strikingly, the resolution makes no mention of Israel's relationship to
UNIFIL or its responsibility to respect UNIFIL's authority in fulfilling its
mission. In other words, UNIFIL is the same feeble instrument it has been
for decades.

"13. Requests the secretary general urgently to put in place measures to
ensure Unifil is able to carry out the functions envisaged in this
resolution, urges member states to consider making appropriate contributions
to Unifil and to respond positively to requests for assistance from the
Force, and expresses its strong appreciation to those who have contributed
to Unifil in the past;"

Translation: The international community will fund and assist UNIFIL.

14. Calls upon the government of Lebanon to secure its borders and other
entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or
related materiel and requests Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11 to assist
the government of Lebanon at its request;

"15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to
prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag
vessels or aircraft;

a. the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and
related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military
vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the
aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and;

b. the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical
training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or
use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these
prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or
assistance authorised by the government of Lebanon or by Unifil as
authorised in paragraph 11;"

These paragraphs target Israel's core concerns. They require full
disarmament of Hizbullah as well as termination of related support to
Hizbullah by its allies. Being linked to Paragraph 6, however, these
provisions also make "reopening [Lebanon's] airports and harbors" contingent
both. Since covert external support to Hizbullah is virtually certain, and
therefore easy for Israel to claim whether Israel has direct evidence or
not, this construction gives Israel a standing legal mechanism through which
to block the reconstruction of Lebanon for whatever reason it might have.

"16. Decides to extend the mandate of Unifil until 31 August 2007, and
expresses its intention to consider in a later resolution further
enhancements to the mandate and other steps to contribute to the
implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;

17. Requests the secretary general to report to the Council within one week
on the implementation of this resolution and subsequently on a regular
basis;

18. Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive,
just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant
resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338
(1973) of 22 October 1973;

19. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Translation: the Security Council intends to keep this tattered process
running.

To summarize, Resolution 1701 reflects a legal coup for Israel and the
United States. On its face, it seems even-handed, providing for an Israeli
withdrawal, pacification of Hizbullah, restoration of Lebanese sovereignty,
and conditions that allow for Lebanon's reconstruction. It actually provides
Israel with ultimate leverage over its own withdrawal, contingent on
disarming Hizbullah.

Most seriously, regarding the UN itself, the Resolution fails to condemn
Israel for violating international law in its onslaught on Lebanon. It also
fails to establish any basis for a serious peace process. It represents a
twisted, tricky document, representing machinations of the United States in
service to the neocon alliance with Israel to "remake" the Middle East. Its
provisions to disarm Hizbullah are politically unworkable and beyond the
SC's capacity. Its provisions for Israeli withdrawal are contingent on that
disarmament.

Regarding its relevance to a real peace in Lebanon, within days or weeks of
this writing Resolution 1701 may be a discredited artefact of history. But
its design remains significant: inability of the SC to act in a principled
fashion to impose international order. In that light, it tells us far more
about the internal debility of the UN than it does about any future for the
Israeli-Lebanese conflict.

Virginia Tilley is a professor of political science, a US citizen working in
South Africa, and author of The One-State Solution: A Breakthrough for Peace
in the Israeli-Palestinian Deadlock
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0472115138/counterpunchmaga>
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0472115138/counterpunchmaga>
(University of Michigan Press and Manchester University Press, 2005). She
can be reached at tilley at hws.edu 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/lebanon-articles/attachments/20060823/0a2ca3f0/attachment.htm