The Israel-Lebanon border
Less
than two months after the IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon, border demarcation
issues have been resolved. Their resolution eliminates the last obstacle
impeding the deployment of the Lebanese army and UNIFIL (United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon) troops along the border.
Foreign
Ministry Director-General Eytan Bentsur was quoted as saying that the Lebanon
army deployment is likely to start today, following the submission of UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan's report confirming that Israel has fulfilled its
obligations under Security Council Resolution 425. Thus, the Israel-Lebanon
border is to regain UN recognition, and the UN's member states will regard
Lebanon as being responsible for maintaining security on its side of the
border.
When
Israel withdrew unconditionally from Lebanon, it acted on the basis of a
political-military decision recognizing both that the security zone had become
a security burden, and also that the Israel Defense Forces are capable of
defending the country's borders when deployed on Israeli territory. In the
long, violent confrontation with a militant organization, Hezbollah, the IDF
proved unable to capitalize on its advantages, with respect both to ongoing
security arrangements, and to deterrence.
Syria
and Lebanon adamantly opposed unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon. Syria viewed
the continuation of Hezbollah's aggression as a political tool to be
manipulated in order to soften Israel's negotiating stance regarding the Golan
Heights. But after Israel carried out its withdrawal, Syria and Lebanon
realized that their opposition won little support among other Arab countries,
which have long encouraged Israel's withdrawal from conquered Arab lands. Led
by Egypt, these nations could not uphold a position in favor of Israeli
conquest maintained by a fellow Arab country for expedient, manipulative
purposes.
So
Syria and Lebanon were compelled to alter their position; and once they became
convinced that Israel's withdrawal was not a duplicitous scheme, they welcomed
it.
This
revised position left Hezbollah facing a new, awkward position. The Shi'ite
organization had come to the end of the military role it had defined for
itself, which was to defend Lebanese civilians against Israeli aggression, and
to liberate the country from the Israeli conquest. Hezbollah had been entrusted
with the task of heading "national resistance"; this mission being
completed, Hezbollah now searches for a way to exert political influence within
Lebanon.
The
demarcation of the border, and the UNIFIL/Lebanon army deployment along it,
leaves Lebanon responsible for everything that transpires north of the line.
This state of affairs formally ends a situation in which various guerrilla
fighters campaigned violently against Israel from within Lebanese territory.
Nonetheless, it's clear that these new circumstances don't transform the
Israeli-Lebanese nexus into a relationship between friendly countries. It can
at least be hoped that the border will someday turn into a partition separating
friends.
In
this connection, it's worth recalling that Israel did not enter Lebanon
initially because of a dispute with that country. Instead, it crossed the
northern border because Lebanon's government was unable to restrain Palestinian
guerrillas who operated in the country. Though Israel cannot forge a direct
peace agreement with Lebanon (it must first attain a peace settlement with
Syria), it is nonetheless entitled to demand that the Lebanese government act
on the basis of its sovereign responsibilities, and use its authority to clamp
down on acts of anti-Israeli hostility launched on Lebanese territory.