- Home
- War in the Middle East
- Editorial: Urgency of a Strict Application of Resolution 1701
- 02
- Dec.
- 2023
Editorial: Urgency of a Strict Application of Resolution 1701
modified on 07 Oct. 2024 à 16:45 Read : 3 minute(s) A A A
The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 compelled the Lebanese and Israeli governments to formally sign the May 17 Agreement (1983) following extensive and difficult negotiations. This was an official document that definitively ended the state of hostility between the two countries, thereby laying the foundation for the withdrawal of the Israeli army from South Lebanon.
Since its inception, the May 17 Agreement has encountered staunch opposition from the Syrian regime, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and the Lebanese left. They launched an unyielding campaign to overturn it, using systematic media targeting. They produced daily declarations, statements, articles, commentaries, or interviews in Lebanon and Syria, all emphasizing the imperative “to abolish the May 17 Agreement.”
This is precisely what Lebanon needs in the current circumstances: a focused media strategy for the strict and comprehensive implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. Adopted in August 2006 following the conflict initiated by Hezbollah against Israel in July, the resolution prohibited any unauthorized armed presence south of the Litani River. It explicitly stipulated that the southern region, up to the border with Israel, must be under the exclusive control of the Lebanese army and the Blue Helmets, UNIFIL’s peacekeeping forces.
At this very moment, and awaiting any potential regional development based on a lasting resolution, Lebanon can solely prevent the recurrence of the 1970s scenario by strictly adhering to the provisions of Resolution 1701. It is essential to underscore once again that back then, armed Palestinian organizations had settled in the Arkoub, an area later called “Fateh-land,” located near the border with Israel. They had then seized control of the land and conducted lawless rocket attacks, using Katyousha, on Israeli territory. This resulted in retaliatory air strikes targeting Lebanese villages.
Today, nearly half a century later, the same specter of a prolonged attrition war is threatening South Lebanon once again! Regardless of whether the recently observed truce is permanently shattered or restored on short notice, the observation remains the same: as previously and repeatedly underscored, the ideal scenario for Iran, and consequently for its local armed proxy, entails openly maintaining a militia presence along the border with Israel. This would enable the pro-Iranian party to either wage a sustained war of attrition against the Israeli army or assert exclusive control of the territory. Collaborating with allies such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, they would foster a high-tension atmosphere punctuated by ad hoc and episodic outbreaks, aligning with the geopolitical calculations of the Tehran regime.
At the risk of being called“isolationists,” our foremost concern as Lebanese citizens in this context is to outline the necessary course of action to counter the threat stemming from this new situation initiated by Hezbollah in South Lebanon. One that is undertaken unilaterally and without prior consultations. In this regard, and still within a media-focused approach, the leitmotif of the current phase should be the immediate and imperative implementation of Resolution 1701, which was adopted in direct response to Hezbollah's pressing request in August 2006.
The leaders and parties of the sovereigntist movement ought to unwaveringly intensify their media targeting across all political, diplomatic, media, and even civil society fronts, doing so daily if needed. This will guarantee the Iranian camp’s strict adherence to the mission of the UN forces.
The Lebanese population is confronted with the impacts of the most devastating economic, financial, and social crisis in the country's contemporary history, affecting every aspect of their daily lives. Asking them to currently engage in new, sterile military ventures that are covertly driven to fulfill nothing more than the obscure strategic interests of regional powers would be a crime. It would be tantamount to being guilty of non-assistance to a population in peril.
Read more
Comments