Security Council Resolution 1701

“Words, words, words… I’m so sick of words,” said Eliza Doolittle. She might have been working for the UN. UNSCR 1701, like most UN documents, is not a bad representation of what should be done (the words are fine). But like most UN documents, it falls miles short on the implementation of its mandates.

“Words, words, words… I’m so sick of words,” said Eliza Doolittle. She might have been working for the UN. UNSCR 1701, like most UN documents, is not a bad representation of what should be done (the words are fine). But like most UN documents, it falls miles short on the implementation of its mandates.

• Responsibility for the war is placed squarely on Hizbullah. The UN demands “the immediate cessation by Hizbullah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations,” leaving room for Israeli defense and retaliation. This is important in conjunction with a later paragraph. Operating Paragraph 2 notes that only upon the full cessation of hostilities will the government of Lebanon and UNIFIL deploy to the south. And only at that point will Israel be asked to withdraw in parallel to the Lebanese/UN deployment. It leaves room for understanding that the “defanging” of Hizbullah – one of Israel’s strategic goals – might be done by Israel rather than by the Lebanese/UN force.
• The abduction of two Israeli soldiers is referred to as a “cause” of the war to be redressed immediately – also one of Israel’s strategic goals. Lebanese prisoners and Shebaa farms are deliberately and specifically aside for later.
• The absence of Lebanese government control of its territory – and Hezbollah’s establishment of a “state within a state” as Arafat had done before – is named as the root of the crisis. The UN calls for the exercise of “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.” Operating Paragraphs 3 through 8 all insist that Lebanon behave like a sovereign government and that other countries (Iran and Syria, though not mentioned by name) stop sending arms and materiel into the country; two more of Israel’s strategic goals.
• The Resolution corrects the shortcomings of UNIFIL, calling for a “UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation” to enable it 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 utilized for hostile activities of any kind.” Not a goal, but not a bad thing.

So, all in all, it’s not bad, right? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

There is no mechanism, except continued fighting by Israel, to disarm Hizbullah – and Nasrallah (apparently under pressure from Iran) has already changed his mind about even paying lip service to the ceasefire. There is no mechanism, except continued fighting by Israel, to close the Syrian/Iranian supply lines into Lebanon. There is no mechanism, except continued fighting by Israel, to force Hizbullah to return the two soldiers. UN Security Council members can pat themselves on the back for their words, but the awful work of fighting to redeem the captives, end the barrage of rockets, and bring sovereignty to Lebanon, is left to Israel and the IDF with no real help from Turtle Bay.