Kyle Orton
Unherd, Nov. 27, 2024
“It is an open question whether these terms can sustain a ceasefire even for the 60 days needed for the first phase of implementation.”
The ceasefire announced between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon enters into force today. It does, however, contain several flaws.
The key problem is enforcement. The framework for this ceasefire is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the previous Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006. The Resolution said there would be a 12-mile zone between the “Blue Line” (Israel-Lebanon border) and the Litani River that was “free of any armed personnel, assets, and weapons other than” those of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).
Resolution 1701 also called for the “full implementation of the […] Taif Accords”, which ended the Lebanese Civil War in 1989 and “require[d] the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon”. This was clearly a reference to Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
The premise of Resolution 1701 was ludicrous: there is no LAF to fill a vacuum left by Hezbollah. The LAF is an agglomeration of hostile sectarian militias, partly created and thoroughly infiltrated by the IRGC. As for UNIFIL, it was at best indifferent as Hezbollah built up its bases and forces along the Israeli border over the last 18 years….SOURCE
Kyle Orton is an independent terrorism analyst. He tweets at @KyleWOrton
