Resolution on Lebanon: three sides of the same coin

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov) - At first glance, it seems that the UN Security Council resolution on Lebanon merely binds the warring sides - Israel and the Shiite radical group Hizbollah - to settle their conflict at a later date, as if the Lebanese crisis caused by the mutual antagonism between Israel and Hizbollah will go away like a minor bruise.

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is supposed to guarantee peace or a truce for an indefinite period of time. In reality, the peacekeepers' mission is more reminiscent of an adult trying to stop kids from getting rough.

No wonder questions, doubts and conclusions have arisen. Will the peacekeepers manage to prevent the situation in Lebanon from sliding into another war if they use the powers prescribed by the resolution? Well, if the real disarmament of Hizbollah begins and if Lebanon becomes truly independent from Iran and Syria... In general, implementing the resolution in full and preventing a resumption of hostilities is a problem.

Of course it is, and it cannot be otherwise. There are hardly any historical precedents for a truce that goes without a hitch. Moreover, the situation in Lebanon has changed after 34 days of war. The authors of the draft resolution thoroughly weighed all the pros and cons, tried not to aggravate the situation and gave priority to reality over ephemeral truth. The resolution has turned out to be very cautious. It is a compromise-oriented, balanced document that considers the interests of all sides.

The resolution is impeccable in describing procedures for the cessation of hostilities and the separation of the warring parties. It takes into account Israel's concerns, Lebanon's sovereign priorities, and Hizbollah's political ambitions. The plan for the deployment of UNIFIL and the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon allows Israel to withdraw its troops from the region in parallel with the introduction of the coalition forces. The resolution deals with other Lebanese problems, beginning with the sale of arms and ammunition to Lebanon, and ending with the disarmament of paramilitary groups and the settlement of controversial land disputes at the Israeli-Lebanese border. But what is the reality?

Hizbollah has its own armed forces and is not controlled by either the Defense Ministry or the government of Lebanon. Obviously it is a state within a state, and without its disarmament the Lebanese-Israeli problem cannot be resolved.

But this is one side of the coin. The other is how to disarm Hizbollah. After this mediocre operation based on the might-makes-right principle, Israel has lost all of its existing and potential allies in Lebanon. Now it is seen as more of an aggressor who is to blame for the Lebanese tragedy than Hizbollah, which provoked it. Now only the Israelis, the Americans, and the president of the Institute of Israel and Middle East Studies, Yevgeny Satanovsky, are calling Hizbollah a "state within a state". This opinion is not shared in Lebanon.

The Lebanese army will be deployed in southern Lebanon "not to disarm Hizbollah. Even Israel could not complete this task by launching an aggression against our country," Lebanese Defense Minister Ilyas al-Murr said. He emphasized that the promise of Hizbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to fully cooperate with the Lebanese army gives him confidence that the security of the people, including resistance fighters, will be guaranteed, and the victory of the Lebanese resistance consolidated.

But there is a third side of the coin. All Arabs, including Egypt and the Saudis, are now against the unconditional disarmament of Hizbollah. Considering that the situation is "sensitive", the European Union does not intend to blacklist Hizbollah as a terrorist organization despite persistent requests from the U.S.

Now Hizbollah is positioning itself exclusively as a political organization, and it is doing well in many respects. It has limited its claims on Israeli territory to the Blue Line, whereas ordinary Lebanese are not likely to understand Israel's arguments about the Shebaa Farms.

In general, all parties to the conflict have backed the resolution. However, the victorious statements made by both Israel and Hizbollah suggest the sad idea that the sides are interested in a truce rather than peace, and poor Lebanon will continue being a hostage to their ambitions for a long time to come.

Why blame the UN Security Council for being unable to solve the problem if the world is so imperfect? A closer look at the resolution shows that my first impression was right. It is indeed based on the hope that the crisis will go away like a minor bruise.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.