Home > ANALYSIS: Pleased with the UN draft, but keeping quiet
Wars and conflicts International
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
Israel refrained from issuing an official response Saturday to the draft resolution presented by the United States and France to the United Nations Security Council, which called for a full cessation of violence between Israel and Hezbollah. The silence is not accidental.
The final version of the resolution has not yet been approved, and it could change. Demonstrated Israeli enthusiasm for the draft could influence support among Security Council members, who could demand a change in wording that may adversely affect Israel.
On a less official level, diplomatic sources in Jerusalem expressed satisfaction with the draft and noted that Israel was very involved in its formulation. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s chief of staff, Yoram Turbowicz, conducted talks with the Americans and French from Jerusalem; Tal Becker, an advisor to Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, flew to New York to take part in talks conducted at the UN.
Why are sources in Jerusalem so pleased? First, because Hezbollah is held responsible for the outbreak of violence; second, because of the asymmetric attitude towards either side of the conflict. Hezbollah was called on to immediately release the two abducted Israel Defense Forces soldiers, while the release of Lebanese prisoners is mentioned with less urgency. The draft calls on the IDF to halt its assault, but states that Israel may defend itself, while Hezbollah is called to cease fire.
The Israeli demand to impose an arms embargo on non-government forces in Lebanon was accepted, as was the demand to demilitarize the area south of the Litani River. Sources in Jerusalem were also pleased with the call for the deployment of an international force. Details regarding the force will be decided upon in a separate Security Council resolution. Sources in Jerusalem were less pleased with the indirect reference to the delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, a hint at an Israeli withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms area.
The obstacle in the draft is that the cease-fire must be immediate, meaning that the IDF can maintain the positions it has assumed in south Lebanon. This can be viewed as an Israeli achievement, as these positions may be used as a territorial bargaining chip that will prevent Hezbollah from returning to the border until the deployment of the international force.
But one may wonder whether a long stay in Lebanon and reinstating the security zone will work to Israel’s advantage or disadvantage, if it grants Hezbollah justification to operate "against the occupation" rather than disarm. The sources expressed doubt as to whether such a cease-fire can last.
Another problem, for Israel, is that the draft tries to please both sides and grants the Lebanese hope for the release of prisoners and gaining the Shebaa Farms, and thus differs from the G-8 proposal, issued during the initial days of fighting.
Israel made a major concession in talks that preceded the formulation of the draft and agreed that during the initial stage, the international force would be defined as reinforcement for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, after it was assured that the back up would come from the French army.
Initially, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert opposed the reinforcement of UNIFIL, arguing that the force was ineffective, and demanded a new force with a Security Council mandate. He changed his mind after he realized that the Lebanese government has the right to veto the deployment of foreign troops on its soil. Beirut reneged from its prior support for an international force following the Israel Air Force strike in Qana last week, in which dozens of civilians were killed.