March 15, 2025
By Nasser Kandil
• The Israelis despise international resolutions to the core. Since the inception of their entity, they have never implemented a single UN resolution. This rejection stems from two fundamental reasons.
First, the very foundation of their entity rests on the violation of international law. Accepting UN resolutions would inevitably lead them to confront calls for enforcing Resolution 181, which mandates the establishment of a Palestinian state on half of the territories occupied in 1948 and all of those occupied in 1967. It would also necessitate adherence to Resolution 194, which upholds the right of return and compensation for Palestinian refugees, restoring them to their lands, livelihoods, and homes. Acceptance of these resolutions was, in fact, a condition for the entity’s membership in the United Nations.
• The second reason behind their rejection of international resolutions is the conviction of their leaders that negotiating outside the framework of international law and UN decisions grants them leverage. It allows them to exploit hidden sources of power – political, security-related, and financial – that Washington deploys on their behalf in negotiations. This strategy enables them to secure gains that would be unattainable under the constraints of international law.
• On every battlefield and in every negotiation, Israel has sought to sideline international resolutions. It negotiated with Egypt outside the framework of Resolutions 242 and 338, both of which mandate withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967, managing to retain control over Gaza with Egyptian approval. It did the same with Jordan, disregarding the West Bank and East Jerusalem, restricting negotiations to defining Egypt’s and Jordan’s official borders in defiance of UN directives. With Syria, it attempted a similar approach, and when it failed, it sabotaged the negotiations entirely.
As for Lebanon, Resolution 425 explicitly requires a full withdrawal beyond internationally recognised borders. Yet, Israel refused to comply, instead imposing negotiations over an agreement outside the resolution’s framework – something that prominent legal scholars, foremost among them the late Dr. Mohammad Al-Majdhoub, regarded as a historic mistake for Lebanon, as it subjected an established legal right to negotiation.
• Resolution 1701 mirrors Resolutions 242 and 338 in that it envisions withdrawal to an arbitrary line rather than to internationally recognised borders. To prevent the perpetuation of occupation, it calls for the separation of areas occupied by the Israeli entity’s army during the July War – territories that lie within the Blue Line, demanding an immediate withdrawal since their status was resolved in 2000, making further negotiation unnecessary. Meanwhile, areas contested since 2000 remain under the purview of Resolution 425, which mandates withdrawal beyond internationally recognised borders, as these borders are definitive. Resolution 1701 does not call for negotiations over these lands; rather, it instructs the UN Secretary-General to propose solutions to disputes regarding them.
Therefore, it must be stated unequivocally: Lebanon’s acceptance of merging the fate of occupied territories both within and beyond the Blue Line nullifies Resolution 1701. Furthermore, agreeing to subject both matters to negotiation effectively also nullifies Resolution 425.
