• Print
• Share

Update Report No.5: Lebanon/Israel

Document in Word Format • PDF format

Expected Action in the Council
The Council is being briefed today, 20 July, in an open meeting, by the Secretary-General (initial conclusions from the Secretary-General’s envoys who visited the region from 12-18 July may be available). A public meeting at the Council is scheduled for Friday 21 July. Following the inconclusive public Council meetings on the situation in Gaza (on 30 June, 6 and 13 July) and Lebanon (on 14, 15 and 17 July), the public meeting will be a major opportunity for Council members to indicate their positions on how to respond to the crisis.

The Lebanese government has again called for an immediate ceasefire, but it is not expected that the Council will be ready to take action on that this week.

Considerable discussion is expected, however, on:

• the plight of civilians in the conflict (and a press statement expressing concern for civilians and calling on all parties to comply with international humanitarian law is an option);
• the proposal made by the Secretary-General and by the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to establish a stabilisation force in Lebanon as part of a package to reach a ceasefire. (The Secretary-General is expected to recommend that the force be multi-national and be stationed in Lebanon for several months once a ceasefire has been reached, after which the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) would be strengthened and have the mandate to maintain a demilitarised buffer zone.)

Discussion of the related events in Gaza is also expected as some delegations are likely to want to emphasise the linkages between the two situations (and perhaps also their assessments of the roles of Syria and Iran).

Recent Developments
On 25 June, Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier and killed two others. They demanded in exchange the release of Palestinian prisoners. Israel refused to negotiate, launched a military operation in Gaza in order to retrieve the soldiers and arrested Palestinian leaders. On 29 June, Kofi Annan called on the Palestinian authority to release the Israeli soldier and to end rocket attacks against Israel. He also called on Israel to show restraint, avoid damaging infrastructures in Gaza and abide by international humanitarian law, although he expressed understanding that Israel would go after those who kidnapped the soldier. He also called on the Security Council to address the situation.

On 13 July, the Council debated a draft resolution (S/2006/508) sponsored by Qatar, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of the Israeli soldier, for the release of all Palestinian officials detained by Israel, for a halt to a “disproportionate” military reaction by Israel and calling upon the Palestinian Authority to take “immediate and sustained” action to bring to an end the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel. The draft also called on the international community to provide emergency assistance to the Palestinian people, and on the Israeli Government to restore and maintain the supply of fuel to Gaza, and to replace destroyed equipment at the Gaza power plant. The US vetoed the draft. Denmark, Peru, Slovakia and the UK abstained. The US said that it wanted more time to negotiate on the text because it did not reflect important new developments (i.e. the crisis in Lebanon), and that it was “unbalanced”, placing demands on one side but not on the other.

On 12 July, the South-Lebanon based militia Hezbollah in an action mirroring the 25 June Hamas operation in Southern Israel, crossed the Blue Line and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah then joined Hamas by announcing that the soldiers were being held hostage against the release of various prisoners detained in Israel. This latter Hezbollah action, widely recognised as a war crime, was denounced almost universally. The Secretary-General also pointed out that the operation was a “blatant breach” of Security Council resolutions.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert described the Hezbollah actions as “an act of war”. Israel’s right to respond in self defence was recognised by many members of the international community. Israel also drew linkages with Hezbollah’s support for Hamas’ earlier actions and Syria’s support for both.

The Government of Lebanon announced that it had been unaware of Hezbollah’s plans and did not endorse them. However, perhaps reflecting the fragile political situation within the Government, it has not condemned the Hezbollah action or called for Hezbollah to treat the Israeli prisoners in accordance with international humanitarian law.

Israeli planes and artillery have now bombarded Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and elsewhere for seven days. Israel asserts that it is targeting Hezbollah facilities, offices and leaders. But because Hezbollah operates within civilian areas, there have been large numbers of civilian casualties. Concerns have been raised that the bombardment involves disproportionate risk for civilians.

Israeli troops crossed into Lebanon in apparently limited ground operations. Israeli jets attacked Beirut’s international airport, forcing it to close and Israel announced an air and sea blockade of Lebanon, in order to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining re-supply from Syria and/or Iran. Infrastructure such as roads, bridges and power stations were also attacked.

Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israeli towns have followed, including against Israel’s third largest city, Haifa. Hezbollah has made no denial of the fact that its rockets are targeted against civilians.

The civilian population has begun to flee and foreigners are being evacuated.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, has warned both sides that the impact on civilians may constitute war crimes.

On 12 July, Kofi Annan sent a mission team to the Middle East led by his Special Political Advisor Vijay Nambiar and including UN Special Envoy for the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004) Terje Roed-Larsen and UN envoy to the Middle East Alvaro de Soto. The Council issued a press statement on 14 July welcoming this initiative. The team visited Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It also met with Arab League officials and Gulf States representatives. However, it was denied access to Syria. The team is expected to come back before the end of the week.

The Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora declared his country a “disaster zone” and called for a meeting of the Security Council, which was held on 14 July. The Council had a public briefing from senior Secretariat officials and heard statements from Lebanon and Israel. No Council member proposed any action.

Israel has given three conditions for the cessation of hostilities:

• The immediate and unconditional release of the two Israeli soldiers;
• The cessation of rocket attacks into Israel;
• The full implementation of Council resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), including the disarmament of Hezbollah and the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah rejected those conditions. Israel’s intentions seem to be the destruction of Hezbollah’s military capabilities in order to prevent a return to the status quo ante and to force the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559.

The League of Arab States held an emergency summit meeting in Cairo on 15 July. There are media reports that several Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and some Persian Gulf states find Hezbollah’s action “unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible”. This stance was widely interpreted as a reflection of growing concern about Iranian influence in the region. The Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said the Middle East peace process was dead and called on the UN Security Council to tackle the crisis. He also stated recently that the conditions imposed by Israel for a ceasefire were impossible to meet.

The G8 countries, meeting in Saint Petersburg, issued a statement on 17 July:

• Blaming Hezbollah for the crisis;
• Calling for an end to violence;
• Calling on Israel to exercise utmost restraint, avoid civilian casualties and refrain from destabilising the Lebanese government;
• Calling for the immediate release of the Israeli soldiers;
• Recognising Israel’s right of self-defence;
• Saying the end to Israeli military operations and withdrawal of forces from Gaza were other conditions to lay the foundation for a more permanent solution.

However, G8 countries were divided over some aspects of the issue, with France, Russia and Italy believing that some of Israel’s actions are disproportionate. The US President rejected this analysis and defended Israel’s right to self defence.

At the margins of the G8 summit, Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair developed the idea of an international force in Lebanon as a part of a ceasefire package to guarantee implementation of Security Council resolution 1559. Such a package might also include elements relating to release of prisoners. This concept has subsequently attracted considerable support. Israel has not rejected the idea although it says much would depend on the firmness of the mandate. Hezbollah has not commented directly, but seems to still reject resolution 1559.

At press time, 302 Lebanese people, mostly civilians, and 29 Israelis including 15 civilians have died in seven days of conflict. Lebanese Prime Minister said more than 500,000 people had been displaced.

Key Issues
The immediate issue for the Council will be that integrating the issue of the disarmament of Hezbollah into a plan for the cessation of hostilities will take time – not least because neither Hezbollah nor Israel are yet convinced that the necessary concessions should be made. In the meantime civilian casualties on both sides mount and the risk of escalation of the conflict increases. Many Council members and the Secretary-General seem to want the Council therefore to take a stepped approach to the issue including interim action aimed at the protection of civilians.

A related issue is the future of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, which was established in 1978 in resolution 425. The UNIFIL mandate expires on 31 July and, accordingly, a Council decision will be required next week. In the past, the Council has been reluctant to link the implementation of resolution 1559 and wider issues relating to the situation between Lebanon and Israel to the renewal of the mandate of UNIFIL. It is clear that UNIFIL, with a very limited mandate, has only been able to play a peripheral role in the current crisis and many have rejected it as a model for the proposed new international force. On the other hand, until there is a ceasefire it will be extremely difficult to extract the UNIFIL personnel and equipment and some see merit in keeping it in place as a building block for a future new and more robust international presence. The Council may want to keep its options open and a technical rollover resolution is therefore a possibility. But the resolution may also offer a useful vehicle for an interim Council statement on other aspects.

A third issue for the Council is whether the Israel/Lebanon issue can or should be separated from the situation in Gaza. It is the view of some that the issues are intimately linked and that the Council should adopt a holistic approach to the current situation.

The concept of operations for a multi-national force in Lebanon is another issue that will be discussed by the Council, but probably not in detail this week. There are several subsidiary issues:

• Should it be a UN force? The UN has particular strengths in peacekeeping, where the parties consent to the mandate, but is less experienced in managing enforcement operations – although it has demonstrated in the DRC, with MONUC, that it can manage robust Chapter VII mandates. Nevertheless if it seems that the mandate will require enforcement of Resolution 1559 and there is a real risk that this will be contested with military force by Hezbollah – or some factions of it – there will be pressure (including from Israel) for the operation to be conducted by a coalition under a Chapter VII mandate. However, others including Lebanon and regional neighbours and some Security Council members seem likely to prefer a UN force. A related matter is funding. The costs of a UN operation are shared via the UN budget. Under a coalition troop contributors have to meet all their own costs, meaning that it will be very difficult for any but developed countries to participate.
• Who should participate? For much of the last 60 years an extremely sensitive issue in the context of proposals for participation in peacekeeping forces in the Middle East has been the composition of the proposed force. For instance, cold war issues and concern about troops from the Soviet Union participating in the region often led to Israel opposing proposals in the past. In the current situation participation by troops from moderate Muslim countries could be a very important balancing factor. Breadth of participation may therefore become an important political condition for brokering any eventual package.
• A major issue is the timing. Without an associated commitment to some form of ceasefire, it is highly unlikely that the Council will accept the deployment of a force. Indeed, Israel already stated its opposition to that. A related issue is whether some form of de-escalation can be agreed as an interim measure.
• The critical issue in the long run, however, will be the mandate of any force. While a mandate requiring implementation of resolution 1559 may be the key to unlocking agreement by Israel on a ceasefire, Hezbollah may prefer the status quo to continue for quite some time rather than accepting that an international force should be empowered to disarm it.
• Finally, the possibilities of strengthening the Lebanese government’s presence in the South and its willingness and capacity to implement Resolution 1559 will also be an issue. This may arise as a stand alone issue and in conjunction with the proposed international force.

Council Dynamics
Council members seem to be divided into three groups:

• Delegations such as the US are unwilling to take action which would undercut Israel’s right to self-defence.
• Delegations such as Qatar and Argentina seem to be willing to call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.
• The bulk of Council members believe a ceasefire, taking into account the positions of both sides, should be called for as soon as a viable approach emerges (perhaps from the report of the UN team).

There is a wide consensus on the growing risks to civilians and civilian infrastructure and for wider escalation of the situation. There is support for the release of the three hostages without conditions. But there are still divergences between Council members on the merits of the Council taking interim action – of an essentially declaratory nature – as opposed to waiting until it is in a position to adopt a resolution that will be effective in resolving the overall issue.

The US has positioned itself in support of Israel, refusing to support an immediate ceasefire without conditions. It also seems that the US would want to have the Council recognise Israel’s right to self-defence and insist on an effective plan for the implementation of resolutions 1559 and 1680 as a condition for a ceasefire. The US position on interim Council action is also influenced by plans that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should visit the region. Inevitably, there will be concerns that the Council should not pre-empt her negotiation space. With regards to the establishment of an international force in South Lebanon, the US has a number of concerns. The US believes that such a force must be empowered to fully disarm Hezbollah. Finally, the US wants recognition of the direct link between Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah and the release of all three Israeli soldiers.

It seems that France and some other delegations will push for an assessment of what role a reinforced UNIFIL could undertake. It also seems that they are keen on starting discussions on a possible draft resolution looking towards the cessation of hostilities, the liberation of the Israeli soldiers and the implementation of resolutions 1559 and 1680. France has circulated elements of a possible resolution that would include:

• A call on all parties to exercise utmost restraint;
• A condemnation of the extremist forces that are destabilising the region;
• A call for a cease-fire with as conditions (1) the release of the abducted Israeli soldiers (2) the disarming and disbanding of all militias in Lebanon (3) support to the Lebanese government to deploy its authority over the whole Lebanese territory and (4) respect of the Blue Line;
• Expression of readiness to explore the possibility of a reinforced international security and monitoring presence in Lebanon.

Underlying Problems
The Lebanese government is in a weak position, especially because of the slow progress with the inter-Lebanese Dialogue (please see our April 2006 Forecast Report).

There have been widespread media reports of Iran and Syria arming Hezbollah and of the presence of Iranian personnel and equipment in South Lebanon.

Concerns over possible Israeli military action against Syria by Israel have been raised. Iran’s president warned that this would provoke a “fierce response” from his country.

There have also been concerns that the Iranian connection in Lebanon is currently being used by Tehran to create a smokescreen to distract attention from its own looming crisis with the Security Council over its nuclear programme.

Selected UN Documents

Historical Background

Other Relevant Facts

• Print
• Share

• Share or print this post