MY TAKE ON UNSC RESOLUTION 1701

By Tony Sayegh

As of this writing, neither the Lebanese government nor Hizbullah has announced its position on this resolution. These observations are therefore being made without the benefit of knowing the official Lebanese position.

To start with, it is rather surprising how very little of substance was actually changed from the earliest drafts. One was led to believe, after all the meetings and wrangling of the mighty and powerful, the supposed split between France and the US, the sending of the Arab delegation to New York to support the Lebanese position, the visits of David Welsh to Beirut and his meetings with the Lebanese PM and indications of Russian impatience that Usrael was actually forced to see the light and make substantial changes to produce a balanced resolution. Far from it. It is clear that all the maneuvering was to create the illusion of balance and that the US was "taking into account" the Lebanese objections, while in reality insisting on and ramming through a resolution that was basically written in Tel Aviv.

Contrary to the view often expressed that Israel and the US were looking for a way out, since Israel was defeated militarily, and that this resolution is only to save face for both of them, I am of the opinion that far from it, this resolution is a win-win for Usrael and that is why it was adopted unanimously and accepted almost instantly by Olmert (hard to reject something you authored yourself). Let me explain.

From the Lebanese side it is a trap, either way. If Hizbullah accepts it (which I doubt), it would be political suicide. It would make no sense after the strong military performance of Hizbullah to accept disarming and the presence of a large international occupation force on Lebanese soil. This would make Hizbullah no better than one of the Iraqi political parties under the wings of the US occupation and Hasan Nasrallah would not even have the stature and the power of Muqtada As-Sadr. On the other hand if the Lebanese government accepts it (and it probably will based on the last meetings of Welsh and Saniora) and Hizbullah rejects it, then this would be the first major crack on the way to a full civil war.

From the Usraeli viewpoint, if Lebanon rejects it then it would "legitimize" the continuation and expansion of the invasion (which I still think is the plan and objective) and would get the US off the hook by showing (to Arab puppet leaders) that the US is "interested in peace" but it is the "Islamic Fascists" of Hizbullah who reject peace. On the other hand, if Lebanon accepts it (with or without the approval of Hizbullah) then this resolution establishes the "legitimacy" of a de facto occupation of Lebanon, the strengthening of a puppet Lebanese government and ceding control of the south of Lebanon (or a part of it) to Israel.

Regardless of the political decisions, I see no end to fighting. The Usraeli goal remains the same: subjugation of Lebanon and the rest of the Arab and Muslim worlds by force. One way or another, Hizbullah will go on fighting either in the current form with the backing of most Lebanese and the Lebanese government, or as an underground resistance movement (as in Iraq) fighting a puppet government supported by foreign military occupation.