Listen to the article
As Lebanon and Israel teeter on the brink of a full-fledged conflict, a diplomatic solution for almost a year-long of spiraling confrontations between Hezbollah and the Israeli army, which took an unprecedented violent turn last week, appears far-fetched.
Walid Joumblatt, the former head of the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), reiterated that a possible solution to ease tensions on the Lebanese-Israeli border could be a return to the 1949 Armistice Agreement that demarcated the border following the first Arab-Israeli war triggered by the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948.
Is diplomacy still viable for ending the raging confrontations?
Resolution 1701 & Armistice Agreement
The best possible framework, if not the only one, is the thorough implementation of UN Resolution 1701, according to retired army General Khaled Hamadeh.
“The diplomatic solution is always available,” Hamadeh told This is Beirut, “The issue is about deploying the Lebanese army along the border in line with all the resolutions concerning Lebanon, be it 1701 or any other decisions, which are all inspired and based on the 1949 armistice agreement, after all.”
“We were the first Arab country to demarcate their border with Israel in 1949, and the implementation of 1701 should be as is,” Hamadeh added.
The armistice agreement signed on March 23, 1949, was dictated exclusively by military considerations, with the armistice line drawn along the international boundary between Lebanon and Mandatory Palestine. It provided for the “scrupulous” respect of the green line, and prohibited the use of military force or acts of war and hostility by “irregular forces.”
A President Is a Prerequisite
Diplomats agree with Hamadeh that a diplomatic solution still stands a chance, despite the dramatic developments over the last week, with all efforts, especially French ones, focused on the United Nations General Assembly’s meetings where representatives of all concerned parties will be at hand.
“Nonetheless, Lebanon should have a president of the republic which is essential in the framework of a diplomatic solution,” a diplomatic source said in comments to This is Beirut.
French presidential envoy Jean-Yves Le Drian, who arrived in Lebanon on Monday, on yet another visit, will be focusing time and again on the issue of the presidential election as part of efforts to deescalate the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
“A diplomatic solution requires a president who speaks on behalf of all Lebanese, and Mr. Le Drian will seize the opportunity to insist on the urgency of electing a president, all the more reason in view of what is happening in the region and what happened in Lebanon over the last days,” the diplomatic source said
“The presidential election is more topical than ever… Now is the time to do it.”
“There will be talks on the sidelines of the General Assembly and negotiations towards a resolution or diplomatic agreement that would commit all parties to the diplomatic path,” he said, stressing that “Resolution 1701 remains the most adequate framework for achieving the objective of lasting peace on the border.”
The source notes that “there may be small amendments to Resolution 1701 in terms of mechanism, observations and implementation.” He recalled the creation of the “quadripartite committee” which was a suitable mechanism for the application of the understanding that ended the 1996 military conflict, also known as the “Grapes of Wrath,” between Israel and Hezbollah.
“A mechanism for 1701 could be modelled on the 1996 quadripartite mechanism,” he added.
The quadripartite committee, which then grouped representatives from the US, France, Syria, Israel and Lebanon, was tasked with monitoring and discussing infringements of the understanding reached through the diplomatic efforts of the US. Under its terms, a new set of rules of engagement were reached, mainly to end cross-border attacks on civilian targets and to refrain from launching attacks from civilian-populated areas.
Diplomacy Untimely
However, at this stage of the escalation that took a fierce turn, unprecedented since the 2006 war, a diplomatic option may seem highly unlikely. Diplomatic efforts deployed by France, the US and other international actors over the past months have failed to prevent the alarming conflagration that is exacerbating by the day.
“We’re not at a point in time where we can talk about diplomatic solutions,” contends Didier Leroy, researcher at the Royal Military Academy of Belgium, in an interview with This is Beirut.
“Israel is clearly in a headlong rush and has opted for a military solution, while Hezbollah is cornered but it cannot afford not to respond and live up to its promises of revenge against Israel.”
“However,” Leroy adds, “Hezbollah will have to weigh up its options at a time when it is certainly destabilized by the security breaches it has suffered. It needs to preserve its arsenal, or at least a significant part of it, when the Israelis are bringing out their heavy machines, like the F-35 warplanes.”
The researcher played down the likelihood of a diplomatic solution, arguing that Israel, which was trapped on October 7 by Hamas’ attack, is now trying to turn the tables on Hezbollah by pushing it into a war it doesn’t want, or wants half-heartedly.
“I don’t see an armistice happening tomorrow. Resolution 1701 has never been respected. It didn’t stop the Israelis from overflying Lebanese airspace, and it didn’t stop Hezbollah from implanting itself in the border villages,” Leroy said, adding that “each party feels caught up in an existential struggle.”
Are we in for an open conflict of very high intensity, which is likely to last for some time and inflict damage on both sides in an unprecedented way, or will diplomacy succeed despite all the odds? Only time will tell.
