Middle East update
Put Me Down I'm British: A Reporter's NotebookAs diplomats and media analysts put out calls for a diplomatic solution to the latest round of fighting between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, I find it astonishing that nowhere have I seen any reference to a United Nations resolution passed 18 years ago.
Drafted in the summer of 2006 to end just over a month of bitter fighting between the sides, UN Security Council resolution 1701 calls for: “A full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.”
Granted, it was never implemented but surely that doesn’t mean that we need to reinvent the wheel.
Speaking after meeting his US, French, German and Italian counterparts, British foreign minister David Lammy demanded “a negotiated political settlement.”
“I’m calling for an immediate ceasefire from both sides so that we can get to that political settlement that’s required,” he went on to say.
Would it not have been more accurate to call for the implementation of the existing resolution. That may sound pedantic but there are few areas in which precise wording counts as much as it does in diplomacy.
Resolution 1701 prescribes a south Lebanon buffer zone between the Litani river and the UN approved border with Israel, known as the Blue Line, about 30 km to the south, and calling for, “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 the UN peacekeeping force there whose mandate renders it largely helpless.
The resolution was unanimously approved by the Security Council on August 11 2006 and within two days by the governments of Lebanon and Israel.
Since then, Hezbollah has not laid down its weapons and there has been no attempt by the Lebanese government or the UN force to disarm it. On the contrary, its arsenal has grown over the years and according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies it now has around 120,000-200,000 rockets and missiles.
The many launch sites hit by Israel on Thursday and identified by Israeli and Arab media appear to be well south of the Litani.
So if 1701 died a death, why should anyone believe that hammering out a new deal would ultimately fare any better.?
Shouldn’t that resolution’s impotence at least be mentioned as context somewhere in all the earnest statements and analysis. Or am I missing something?
Drafted in the summer of 2006 to end just over a month of bitter fighting between the sides, UN Security Council resolution 1701 calls for: “A full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.”
Granted, it was never implemented but surely that doesn’t mean that we need to reinvent the wheel.
Speaking after meeting his US, French, German and Italian counterparts, British foreign minister David Lammy demanded “a negotiated political settlement.”
“I’m calling for an immediate ceasefire from both sides so that we can get to that political settlement that’s required,” he went on to say.
Would it not have been more accurate to call for the implementation of the existing resolution. That may sound pedantic but there are few areas in which precise wording counts as much as it does in diplomacy.
Resolution 1701 prescribes a south Lebanon buffer zone between the Litani river and the UN approved border with Israel, known as the Blue Line, about 30 km to the south, and calling for, “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 the UN peacekeeping force there whose mandate renders it largely helpless.
The resolution was unanimously approved by the Security Council on August 11 2006 and within two days by the governments of Lebanon and Israel.
Since then, Hezbollah has not laid down its weapons and there has been no attempt by the Lebanese government or the UN force to disarm it. On the contrary, its arsenal has grown over the years and according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies it now has around 120,000-200,000 rockets and missiles.
The many launch sites hit by Israel on Thursday and identified by Israeli and Arab media appear to be well south of the Litani.
So if 1701 died a death, why should anyone believe that hammering out a new deal would ultimately fare any better.?
Shouldn’t that resolution’s impotence at least be mentioned as context somewhere in all the earnest statements and analysis. Or am I missing something?
No comments have been added yet.
