Where have all the agreements gone?

By Ze'ev Schiff, Ha’aretz, 4.6.00

Anyone who thinks that the Lebanese chapter of Israel's history has ended with the closing of the Fatma Gate on the Israel-Lebanon border is fooling themselves. The Israeli government now faces some serious and sensitive questions.For example: Does the IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon spell the end of the Grapes of Wrath understandings?

This agreement between Israel and Lebanon (and indirectly with Hezbollah, as well) also involves the governments of Syria, France and the United States, whose representatives sit on the joint oversight committee.

It has come in for much criticism in Israel ever since it was instituted in 1996. It was primarily intended to prevent strikes on civilian targets, but it basically set the rules of engagement in southern Lebanon. Now that the IDF has withdrawn from southern Lebanon, the agreement is dying a natural death, though one might contend that the committee should continue to meet.

But more questions remain concerning agreements related to Lebanon. Has the 1976 Red Lines agreement (it, too, was unsigned and considered an "understanding" between the parties) between Israel and Syria also dissolved in the wake of Israel's commitment to the United Nations secretary general to cease flying over Lebanon?

The Red Lines agreement, concluded with American mediation, essentially granted Israel aerial dominance in the skies of Lebanon while prohibiting the Syrians from engaging in military activity from the air.

If this no longer holds, what happens to the rest of the restrictions that Damascus took upon itself in the context of the agreement, agreeing not to place anti-aircraft missile batteries in Lebanon and not to dispatch forces south of Sidon?

Why should one section be canceled and the rest remain in force? If the Grapes of Wrath understandings are nullified, why should the Syrians agree to extend the Red Lines understandings? The conventional wisdom is that, with the IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon, Syria has lost some important playing cards, but if Israel really stops its flights over Lebanon, Damascus will chalk it up as a strategic achievement, one that it could not have procured any other way.

The upshot is that there's no escaping a fundamental debate about the Syrian presence in Lebanon. Of course, one cannot discuss the Syrian presence in Lebanon without also dealing in a thorough manner with the Iranian presence in Lebanon. For some reason, the latter question has been neglected in our contacts with Washington.

And another question pertaining to agreements: What is the status of the March 23, 1949 cease-fire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, the only signed agreement ratified by the two countries? Is it still in effect? Israel let it be known years ago that it considers this agreement null and void.

The Lebanese still cling to it and cite it from time to time. Now that we've returned to the international border, perhaps this is the time to revive it and adapt it to the new situation. The cease-fire agreement prohibits all military activity in the neighboring country, including that of militias. It further stipulates that the agreement may only be modified by mutual consent and with the sponsorship of the UN secretary general.

Finally, there's one open and sensitive question that is military in nature, but which also involves an international covenant. With the battles in South Lebanon at an end and the IDF having withdrawn, the area will turn out to be full of death traps, mines and roadside bombs for the citizens who will begin to move about there freely.

Many of these mines are old, dating back to 1982 or even earlier. The IDF is not the only one who placed them in the field. Hezbollah, which fought mostly with roadside bombs, also did so. The SLA did its share, too. Mines and roadside bombs were used as offensive weapons and not just as means to defend positions and outposts.

The international covenant requires the fencing in of mine fields. All the parties to the conflict broke these rules. For its part, Israel has already informed the United Nations of this.

The issue of the mines must be dealt with quickly on both the professional and diplomatic level, lest misunderstandings result