X Close

How Israel and Lebanon can stop the slaughter Another ceasefire is bound to fail

Lebanon and Israel have been at war since 1948 (Photo by Ugur Yildirim/ dia images via Getty Images)

Lebanon and Israel have been at war since 1948 (Photo by Ugur Yildirim/ dia images via Getty Images)


November 19, 2024   5 mins

In the Middle East, transitions between US presidential administrations are often times of bold attempts at diplomacy. It was in the last days and hours of the Clinton administration that intense final status talks were advanced for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, only to be rejected by the Palestinians. It was in the last weeks of the Reagan administration that the US changed its longstanding policy of shunning the Palestine Liberation Organization. And it was the final weeks of the Obama administration that a UN Security Council resolution locking in a set of mostly pro-Palestinian positions on the conflict was engineered by the Americans, who subsequently abstained on the resolution everyone knew they were behind.

For Israel and Lebanon, the coming weeks will be no different. The outgoing Biden team will seek to have an impact on the war. The incoming Trump team will manoeuvre to have as much unpleasantness as possible finished before it comes and as much credit as possible coming to them. And various European and Arab states will seek to exploit the American transition for their own initiatives.

Across the West, diplomats and experts have settled on a consensus for solving the ongoing Arab-Israeli war — one that reveals exactly why international diplomatic efforts have consistently failed. At its core, this approach focuses on restoring the very ceasefire conditions which Lebanon and Hezbollah violated last year, while avoiding any mention of even the desirability of peace — something Lebanon would benefit from more than any other party. In failing to recognise this, our international diplomats embody all the pathologies and failures that have come to define their contribution to this decades-long conflict.

According to the Quai d’Orsay and the State Department, the formula for ending the war merely requires punching in the four-digit PIN code 1701. That, of course, is UN Security Council resolution 1701, the one that ended the last war back in 2006. The resolution included several clear obligations for all parties. Israel was to withdraw from Lebanese territory. Hezbollah was to move all its forces north of the Litani River, creating a buffer zone where the only permitted armed forces would be those of the UN peacekeeping force (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese Army (LFA). UNIFIL was to monitor and enforce these deployments. And Hezbollah was supposed to be decommissioned as an armed force inside sovereign Lebanese territory.

The first measure, Israeli withdrawal, was implemented within days of the resolution’s passage. The others were not. Once Israel’s withdrawal was complete, UNIFIL announced that it had no intention of enforcing 1701, and over the course of the next 17 years, Hezbollah assembled an arsenal of rockets and missiles. It also built a network of tunnels that were supposed to allow it, in a future war, to “conquer the Galilee” in an operation similar to the one Hamas ultimately launched hundreds of kilometres away in southern Israel.

The day after Hamas’s assault on southern Israel on October 7 last year, Hezbollah began firing rockets on northern Israel, forcing the rapid evacuation of border communities comprising nearly 100,000 residents, most of whom have yet to return home. After 11 months of low-intensity warfare, Israel took the initiative, and in 11 days managed to deal Hezbollah a decisive blow. 

On 17 and 18 September, exploding pagers and walkie-talkies disabled the militia’s communications network, taking thousands of fighters out of commission. Over the next week, a series of airstrikes based on precise intelligence destroyed the majority of Hezbollah’s rockets and launchers and eliminated key military commanders. Finally, on 27 September, an Israeli airstrike on a bunker in Beirut killed nearly every senior figure in the organisation, including its voluble leader Hassan Nasrallah. This was followed by a ground invasion which has seen tunnels and munitions, prepared over a decade and more, destroyed with huge losses to Hezbollah and minimal losses to the IDF.

However, the 11-day campaign woke up the international community in a way that 11 months of rocket fire did not. And the unanimous response has been an urgent call for implementation of 1701. David Lammy called for a “political solution in line with Resolution 1701”. The French ambassador to the UN called upon Israel “to stop the escalation underway in Lebanon” and reiterated Frances determination for a cessation of hostilities “in accordance with Resolution 1701”. Hours before the successful operation to kill Nasrallah, the US, Canada, Australia, Canada and a host of European and Arab states issued a joint declaration demanding an immediate 21-day cease “to provide space for diplomacy towards the conclusion of a diplomatic settlement consistent with UNSCR 1701”.

This consensus around the indeterminate and obsolete Security Council resolution tells, in short, the entire story of the failure to resolve this conflict. If there is one thread running through nearly every diplomatic effort of the last eight decades, it is a firm commitment to the idea that any party that launches a war against Israel and is then defeated is entitled to a restoration of the conditions it violently rejected when launching the war.

This unspoken normative commitment explains the iterations of final status plans presented to the Palestinian leadership after its rejection of statehood at Camp David and subsequent suicide bombing campaign of the early 2000s. It explains the insistence on pre-1967 armistice lines as the only legal basis for Israel’s border after 1967. It explains the curious exception to that norm regarding the refusal to recognise even the pre-1967 part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. And it explains the cruel human experiment known as UNRWA, a refugee agency that, unlike any other refugee agency, exists not to rehabilitate refugees but rather to keep them in a permanent state of immiseration to maintain an irredentist claim against another country.

Such a norm has not featured in the post-war mediation of any other conflict, not before 1945 and not since. No one has ever seriously suggested creating a kind of sportsmans mulligan as an international diplomatic norm for other conflicts for this very reason. It’s not hard to see why this might be the case. If the international community extended a line of insurance to other aggressors, which promised that launching wars could bring gains with victory but no losses with defeat, there would be a lot more wars. 

But what’s even more notable than the warped consensus around 1701 is the absence of any mention of making peace between the two neighbouring states. Nowhere is the establishment of normal diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Israel even mentioned as a long-term goal.

“Nowhere is the establishment of normal diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Israel even mentioned as a long-term goal.”

One might argue that peace right now is not realistic, and that may be true. But that is equally true about an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank or the establishment of a Palestinian state or the redivision of Jerusalem — and yet these are always mentioned as long-term goals by European governments.

Why shouldn’t a peace treaty be the clearly stated goal? Normal diplomatic relations would resolve any existing border disputes. After all, the ones still extant are tiny and largely invented pretexts for maintaining Hezbollah’s arsenal.

Just before the US election, France hosted an “International Conference in Support of Lebanons People and Sovereignty”, where $1 billion in aid was pledged and where French President Macron claimed Israel was “sowing barbarism”. If there was any suggestion that Lebanon’s situation might have been improved by not firing rockets into Israel for the past 11 months, the participants were too polite to mention it. Nor was there any reckoning with Lebanon’s decision to cultivate an alternative armed force, larger than its own military, implicated in atrocities in Syria, and answerable to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The insistence of global actors, most notably the host country itself, on protecting Hezbollah and securing for it advantageous ceasefire arrangements in previous wars in 1996 and 2006 also went unmentioned.

And no one mentioned peace. Normal diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Israel wouldn’t mean that Lebanon agrees with everything Israel does. This is already the case for France as well as most of its allies. For that matter, it is also the case for Egypt and Jordan. It would just mean that there is an agreed border, a possibility for minimal economic cooperation, and a commitment to resolve disputes by negotiation. Good for Israel, to be sure. But even better for Lebanon. 

True, no one could seriously believe that this path will be adopted. But the reticence to even raise the topic of peace is in many ways revealing. Most obviously, it sends the wrong message and incentivises the wrong behaviours — as well as violates any normal diplomatic practice regarding other international disputes. But it also mirrors the manner in which the contemporary Western cordon sanitaire around racism has an elaborate permission structure exempting hatred of Jews. Once again, all that’s required is to frame one’s dislike as a kind of grievance against Israel — rather than as pathological hatred of a highly imperfect state that is fighting a complex seven-front war it did not seek.


Shany Mor is a lecturer political thought at Reichman University.

ShMMor

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

30 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
24 days ago

Thank you, Shany. I have nothing to add to what you said, except to say, “Well said, sir.”

Seb Dakin
Seb Dakin
24 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

I second that. I’ve rarely agreed more with an article on the subject.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
24 days ago
Reply to  Seb Dakin

It’s a bit of a surprise, really 🙂

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
24 days ago

A thought worth repeating is this: “If there is one thread running through nearly every diplomatic effort of the last eight decades, it is a firm commitment to the idea that any party that launches a war against Israel and is then defeated is entitled to a restoration of the conditions it violently rejected when launching the war.”

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
24 days ago

No mention of Israel’s constant illegal expansions of settlements in the West Bank then? The Palestinians are presumably supposed to accept the continuation of violent evictions from lands they’ve owned for a millennia?

Chris Whybrow
Chris Whybrow
24 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Tens of thousands dead in about a year and still there are people trying to seriously claim that Israel is still a perfectly normal country that never did anything wrong. Even most Israelis know something is deeply wrong with their government, even if they’re wrong about the cause.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

Chris, try Googling to find out the number of casualties in the wars following 9/11. It is 4.5 millions (figure taken from a recent article in Washington Post). Ignorance is no excuse, I’m afraid. It can see you are computing literate.

Rafi Stern
Rafi Stern
24 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

The subject of the article is the Iranian proxy Hizballah in Lebanon, not Palestinians in Israel, so why should he mention that?

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
24 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

The term “West Bank” is a modern designation that lacks historical precedent or validity. This region is historically known as Judea, a name deeply rooted in Jewish history and heritage. The name “West Bank” was coined by Jordan following its armed and hostile invasion of the area in 1948 until the end of its occupation in 1967. However, this land has been intrinsically linked to the Jewish people for millennia.

Judea is the land from which the Jews (i.e. Judeans) originate, a region where the Judean mountains form the backbone of the landscape. It is the territory historically allotted to the Tribe of Judah, one of the twelve tribes of Israel. The Judeans, or Jews, have lived in this area for many centuries, establishing a rich historical legacy. The cultural significance of Judea to the Jewish people cannot be overstated, making the term “West Bank” a misnomer that overlooks the profound connection between the land and its ancient inhabitants.

jules Ritchie
jules Ritchie
24 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Yes, this is where it all heads south for me too. The settlers are racist ideologues, ugly, narrow-visioned, and seem to have created huge troubles for Israel. They have no intention of ever sharing with Arabs who have owned property there for generations, only to have it stolen by these supposedly godly people. They are the worst thing to have happened to Israel.

Dengie Dave
Dengie Dave
23 days ago
Reply to  jules Ritchie

Just for info, 2 million of Israel’s 9 million citizens are Arabs. How many Jews are there in the Palestinian areas of the West Bank and Gaza that were previously illegally occupied by Jordan and Egytp? Zero. So, if Palestinians had a state, do you think that Jews should and would be allowed live there?

Dengie Dave
Dengie Dave
23 days ago
Reply to  jules Ritchie

Just for info, of the 10 million people in Israel there are 2 million Arab citizens. By contrast in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza there are zero Jews. It is in fact the Palestinian Arabs who have no intention of sharing with Jews.

Bobby Levit
Bobby Levit
18 days ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Billy “Hussein” Bob

Chris Whybrow
Chris Whybrow
24 days ago

Usual
Implicit support for the actual party behind the violations. Not worth reading. If you want to stop the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah (the Lebanese army and the UN aren’t a party no matter how much Israel wishes they were) then Israel must stop its relentless bombing of Gaza. That’s been clear from the beginning.

edmond van ammers
edmond van ammers
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

Silly me. Didn’t realise Hezbollah was only set up after Israel started ‘bombing Gaza’

Danny Kaye
Danny Kaye
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

Even Hezbollah, in its desperation, has at long last dropped the linkage between its attacks on Israel and Israel’s war with Hamas. But you still insist on keeping the Lebanese state and its population hostage to the whims of Hamas. You have no problem seeing the Lebanese suffer as long as Hamas is allowed to survive and to keep its hostages.
You must be a well-meaning Western, progressive, liberal person.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

Chris, you really disappoint me. I’d really like to see how you argue the point you are trying to make. Who knows, I might even agree with you!

John Tyler
John Tyler
24 days ago

The only way to stop the slaughter is to stop Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, ISIS, etc. Their hatred is so deep-rooted that it can only be stoped by eradication. These are not ‘freedom fighters’ but Jew-haters.

Danny Kaye
Danny Kaye
24 days ago

There is no one like Shany Mor to expose the fecklessness of Western diplomats and the immorality of the UN agencies wherever Israel is concerned.

Naren Savani
Naren Savani
24 days ago

An excellent article, puts everything in perspective.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
24 days ago

There is one path to a lasting peace – the jihadis have to end their fantasy of eradicating Israel from the map. Period. And I say this as someone who thinks Bibi has gone too far and threatens to spark a much wider conflict that may do more harm to his state than good.

John Riordan
John Riordan
14 days ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

They will never do that though, will they?

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
23 days ago

I saw an interview with an a young Israeli woman who was kidnapped but returned with the first hostage deal, last year.
She asked, “Where was the Red Cross? Where was the UN?”
In any other prisoner/hostage situation certain organizations rush in to at least secure contact with the prisoners, so that the ‘light of day’, the ‘eyes of the world’, can protect them. The international double standard this time is just disgusting.

Malcolm Webb
Malcolm Webb
22 days ago

Excellent article. Articles such as this are the reason why I still read Unherd.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
22 days ago

The underlying dynamic is to allow the Arab side to continue to withhold recognition of Israel while gaining the benefits of a ceasefire. Tellingly, amongst the thousands of placards carried by the Free Palestine demonstrators, not a single one included the word PEACE.

John Hughes
John Hughes
20 days ago

Very good article except that it omits a paragraph on Lebanon being a failed state. Its huge and long-standing internal problems, derived from its society being divided several ways, make it a state that can’t make peace and internally can’t live at peace.

Bobby Levit
Bobby Levit
18 days ago

Excellent article Mr. Mor…I will definitely be following you on X

Bernard Brothman
Bernard Brothman
15 days ago

Imagine if there was at least a deconfliction communication line between the IDF and the Lebanese Forces. At least start some dialogue.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
15 days ago

The trouble started when the Sunni Muslims joined with Palestinians in attacking Christians. This fissured Lebanon. Then The Lebanese allowed the Iran backed Hezbollah to become the parasite which took control of the country.
The Lebanese should have disarmed the Palestinians or not allowed them in the country.
Arafat, Khomeini and Gaddafi worked together in undermining the Shah.
The problem for Lebanon is that they have no Beduin who make good soldiers. It was the Beduin who cleared the Palestinians out of Jordan after they insulted their wives.

John Riordan
John Riordan
14 days ago

“This consensus around the indeterminate and obsolete Security Council resolution tells, in short, the entire story of the failure to resolve this conflict. If there is one thread running through nearly every diplomatic effort of the last eight decades, it is a firm commitment to the idea that any party that launches a war against Israel and is then defeated is entitled to a restoration of the conditions it violently rejected when launching the war.”

I get the feeling that this ought to be on a plaque somewhere.

As to the rest, it’s one of the best articles I’ve read on this subject.