UN Resolution 1701 is unlikely to produce short or long term stability along the Lebanon -Israel border. Significant obstacles remain in place, threatening to undermine the tenets of the ceasefire agreement. Just as implications of the conflict have reverberated throughout the Middle East region, so too will the uncertain nature of the ceasefire. Israel, US , and the leadership of stable Sunni Arab states will push for the disarmament of Hezbollah , while Hezbollah, Syria , and Iran seek a version of the status quo ante in Lebanon.
Disconnect #1: The Ceasefire
The UN resolution calls for the immediate cessation of Hezbollah attacks and Israeli “offensive military operations.” Yet, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has declared any Israeli soldier remaining on Lebanese soil to be a legitimate target. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will be in southern Lebanon until the combined contingent of the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL (acronym for UN forces in Lebanon) can deploy to the region; this deployment of up to 30,000 soldiers could take several days to weeks. In the meantime, Israel intends to destroy Hezbollah facilities and equipment in the region under Israeli control and “pursue [Hezbollah] everywhere and at all times” (source). Clearly, these contentious perspectives represent potential spoilers for a lasting cease-fire.
Disconnect #2: Hezbollah Disarmament
Hezbollah representatives in the Lebanese Cabinet agreed to all terms in the resolution, but the organization now refuses to disarm in southern Lebanon. The removal of remaining Hezbollah weapons from entrenched infrastructure in southern Lebanon is a concession of defeat and an unlikely gesture from a self-perceived victor. Furthermore, the Lebanese government and UNIFIL will have a difficult time preventing the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah from Syria, a process that decreased but did not stop during the conflict.
The Security Council invoked Chapter 6 to deploy an enhanced UNIFIL; this means their presence is a ‘peacekeeping’ and not a ‘peace enforcement’ force. Though the resolution includes robust language regarding the UNIFIL mandate, the Foreign Minister of France, a co-author of the resolution, stated UNIFIL will not use force to disarm Hezbollah. Hezbollah must voluntary disarm, bringing the issue back to a status quo that led to the original outbreak of hostilities.
Disconnect #3: Timing of the UNIFIL-Lebanese Army Deployment
Fearing a security vacuum that Hezbollah could exploit, Israeli forces will not move from their positions in southern Lebanon until a combined deployment of UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army to the region. However, the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL are not prepared to disarm Hezbollah or deploy to southern Lebanon while an armed Hezbollah remains entrenched. For its part, Hezbollah has balked on disarming and removing its forces from southern Lebanon. The result is a serious Catch-22; one of the parties will have to change policy to initiate the crucial deployment.
Uncertain Outcome
Neither Israel nor Hezbollah wants to be viewed as the cause of resumption in all out hostilities. However, with the full support of their allies, both actors will attempt to exploit the ambiguities of the ceasefire agreement. The critical question is whether the pressure exerted by war-weary domestic populations and the international community is strong enough to corral the combatants within the framework of the UN resolution.