In anticipation of the Israeli Cabinet meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening, which will deliberate on a ceasefire proposal involving Hezbollah, attention has shifted to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1701.
The ceasefire proposal, developed by the United States, is largely based on the principles outlined in UNSC Resolution 1701, adopted in 2006.
This resolution was established to conclude the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group based in Lebanon. The conflict escalated in July 2006 when Hezbollah launched a cross-border attack, resulting in the deaths of eight Israeli soldiers and the abduction of two others. Hezbollah aimed to leverage the abduction for a prisoner exchange; however, it miscalculated Israel’s reaction. Rather than engaging in negotiations, Israel responded with extensive airstrikes followed by a ground invasion of Lebanon to combat Hezbollah. The hostilities persisted for over a month, culminating in the adoption of UNSC Resolution 1701.
What does UNSC Resolution 1701 entail?
According to the stipulations of UNSC Resolution 1701, Israel was required to withdraw from the Lebanese territory it had occupied during the 2006 conflict and retreat to the ‘Blue Line.’ Concurrently, Hezbollah was mandated to vacate southern Lebanon, moving northward beyond the Litani River.
The ‘Blue Line’ serves as the ceasefire boundary between Israel and Lebanon and is recognized as the de facto border between the two nations.
The UNSC Resolution 1701 required the deployment of the Lebanese military in southern regions of Lebanon that had been vacated by Hezbollah. Additionally, it called for the establishment of a UN peacekeeping force to be positioned between the ‘Blue Line’ and the Litani River to oversee the ceasefire.
Furthermore, the resolution stipulated that the Lebanese government must assert control over all Lebanese territories and borders. It also mandated the disarmament of all armed groups within Lebanon, allowing only the Lebanese military and UN peacekeepers to possess weapons in the country.
What are the criticisms of UNSC Resolution 1701?
Although UNSC Resolution 1701 has been regarded as a framework for achieving a peaceful resolution between Israel and Lebanon, it has faced significant criticism from both nations for its ineffectiveness.
The resolution is often deemed a failure due to its lack of implementation. While it called for Israel to withdraw south of the ‘Blue Line’ and for Hezbollah to retreat north of the Litani River, only Israel complied with the withdrawal. Hezbollah did not adhere to the resolution’s terms by failing to move north of the Litani River or disarm.
Additionally, the resolution remains unfulfilled as the Lebanese government does not control substantial areas of the country, particularly in the south, where Hezbollah maintains a strong military presence.
Hezbollah operates as a ‘state within a state’ in Lebanon, having established deep social, political, economic, and military roots in the nation.
Consequently, critics in Israel argue that UNSC Resolution 1701 is ineffective as a basis for any ceasefire agreement. In Lebanon, detractors have long contended that the resolution has not succeeded in curbing Israel’s violations of Lebanese airspace.
UNSC Resolution 1701 and the Ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah
The proposed ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is largely influenced by UNSC Resolution 1701.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to support the ceasefire initiative; however, dissenting opinions persist within his government and the Likud party.
Although the details of the ceasefire proposal remain undisclosed, reports indicate that it suggests an initial 60-day period during which Israeli forces would withdraw from Lebanon, while Hezbollah would retreat from southern Lebanon adjacent to Israel. Following this withdrawal, Lebanese government forces are expected to assume control of the areas previously held by Hezbollah, with the arrangement subject to verification by international observers.
Prior to the Israeli Cabinet’s vote on the proposal, The Jerusalem Post cited Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter expressing his opposition if the ceasefire were to be based on UNSC Resolution 1701. Far-right ministers in Netanyahu’s Cabinet, including Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, along with several Likud members, have also voiced their disapproval of the proposal.
Ben-Gvir characterized the push for a ceasefire as a “grave mistake” and a “historic missed opportunity” to eradicate Hezbollah, while Smotrich asserted that even if a ceasefire were to be ratified, it would hold little significance.
“There will be no agreement. If it is signed, it will be worth no more than the paper it is written on. What truly matters is that we have dismantled them, and we will continue to dismantle them,” Smotrich stated.
