As a man who delights in expressing himself when he has an opinion, I’ve found it difficult to do a follow-up to my initial piece on United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1701 as I have such mixed feelings about this new UN mandate. While I doubt, given the track record of the United Nations, it will succeed, I see some hope in the Security Council’s unity in wanting to see Hezbollah disarmed, its recognition that Hezbollah is responsible for the war.
My biggest concerns about the resolution are that it failed to demand the release of the two Israeli soldiers whom Hezbollah kidnapped and that it failed to give the United Nations peacekeepers Chapter Seven powers to use force to enforce its demands that the terror organization disarm.
That said, I do not agree with those who see this resolution as an unmitigated disaster. It does build on Resolution 1559 in insisting that Hezbollah be disarmed. And while the previous resolution passed with only 9 votes (the minimum needed for passage of a Security Council resolution), all 15 Council members supported 1701. Every member-nation of the Council is now on record in support of disarming Hezbollah within Lebanon.
If a resolution were such a disaster for Israel, Lebanon would not be balking at its terms. According to the latest reports, the Lebanese army will not be asking the terror organization “to hand over its weapons.” Opponents of the resolution understood that this might happen, fearing the Lebanese government would not succeed in fulfilling the Resolution’s mandate to disarm Hezbollah.
Captain Ed believes Israel must make “sure that Beirut can take control of their own territory before they withdraw back across the Blue Line.” I agree. Unless Hezbollah is disarmed, the Lebanese government has not met it obligations under 1701 and Israel can maintain its forces in Lebanon.