December 27, 2024
Nasser Kandil
• Former Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who constitutionally led negotiations and approved Resolution 1701 on behalf of Lebanon while Speaker Nabih Berri acted as a political negotiator, stated that Hezbollah is preparing to undermine its commitment to the agreement, much like it did following the resolution’s adoption. Siniora called on Speaker Berri to fulfill his obligations under the agreement.
• Since Siniora revisits Resolution 1701 and attributes the current situation to Hezbollah’s alleged non-compliance, it is only fair to evaluate the resolution’s implementation to determine the accuracy or bias of Siniora’s claims.
• Siniora criticised Hezbollah’s current stance on Israeli violations and its perceived inaction, stating: “Lebanese citizens now see these statements, excuses, and justifications as lacking seriousness because Lebanon made a commitment. Let me reiterate: this resolution – Resolution 1701 – was supposed to be implemented by Hezbollah from the moment it was issued in 2006. While it is true that Israel also had obligations under it, and it has not fulfilled them, that does not absolve Hezbollah”.
• This conflation of Hezbollah’s commitments with those of the occupying entity to blur responsibilities is a clear distortion. Siniora dismisses these obligations as mere “statements, excuses, and justifications”, despite the resolution clearly outlining sequential obligations. Anyone who reads the document can recognise this sequential order, so how can someone who negotiated, approved, and signed the resolution not recognize the order of these obligations, which were formalised in an official Lebanese endorsement?
• Resolution 1701 outlines a phased approach, with Clauses 1 to 7 addressing an initial phase of ceasing hostilities. Clause 2, calls for an immediate cessation of combat activities and stipulates: “Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the Government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel”.
Hezbollah adhered to ceasing hostilities. The Lebanese Army and UNIFIL subsequently deployed, as mandated. The resolution also required the occupying entity to withdraw from territories it seized, reiterating in Clause 4 “its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line ”. However, aside from the disputed areas prior to the 2006 war which are addressed in clause 10, Israel has failed to withdraw from the Lebanese part of Al-Ghajar village, seized during the 2006 war. Furthermore, it continues its aerial, maritime, and territorial violations, all of which should have ceased during this phase. Lebanon, as a state and resistance, fulfilled all its obligations, whereas Israel has consistently failed to meet its commitments.
• Clause 8 of the resolution transitions to a second phase, calling for a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution stating: “calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long term solution based on the following principles and elements: full respect for the Blue Line by both parties; security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including 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 of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11”.
• Siniora is well aware that Lebanon and the resistance cannot be expected to implement the requirements of Clause 8, including establishing a demilitarised zone south of the Litani River, until the initial phase – ending hostilities – is fully completed. The failure to conclude this phase lies entirely with the occupying entity, which has neglected its obligations despite Lebanon and the resistance fulfilling theirs. Siniora’s argument, therefore, serves to exonerate Israel by deflecting attention and responsibility.
• The dynamics following Resolution 1701 are now resurfacing in a different form. Despite egregious Israeli violations – described by Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati as jeopardising the agreement and acknowledged by U.S. and French representatives as blatant breaches – the resistance has not responded. These violations raise concerns about the agreement’s sustainability and expose the occupying entity’s persistent non-compliance.
