Thin Blue Line
In the beginning there was the Green Line. This was the name given to the 1949 cease-fire lines, and to it was added the Purple Line - the cease-fire lines at the end of the Six-Day War.Then the Israel Defense Forces drew the Red Line in Lebanon - the northern limit of the security zone, which ceased to exist when the IDF withdrew. Now the United Nations has added a Blue Line. This is not the international border between the two countries, which was determined in 1923, but something similar. It is the IDF withdrawal line, which UN experts have determined by their interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 425 of March 1978.
The plethora of lines and colors can be confusing, but what is important
is the political interpretation that the final determination of the
international border will be made when the time comes. That is, when Israel and
Lebanon, in an eventual agreement, agree among themselves where the 1923 border
runs. The argument between them will not be solved now, but has been postponed.
Therefore, the Lebanese have hastened to claim that even after the
withdrawal, in certain places Israel is holding on to Lebanese land. The
Lebanese have to assume that when the time comes, Israel will also have
reservations about the final borderline.
It should be pointed out that the drawing of the international border of
1923, which is 69 kilometers long, was never completed by the British and the
French, nor by Israel and Lebanon. From 1950 until the eve of the Six-Day War,
teams of Israelis and Lebanese tried to complete the task, under UN auspices.
When the war interrupted their work, only about 25 non-contiguous
kilometers of the international border had been marked and signed by the two
sides. Approximately another quarter of the border was marked, but the
documents were not signed. At that time, the surveyors did not deal with the
eastern section of the border.
It is reasonable to assume that if the UN surveyors, along with those
from Lebanon and Israel, had tried to make a final determination of the
international borderline of 1923, they would certainly have found deviations of
several meters along many sections. But the UN took a wise approach. Drawn-out
negotiations in determining the line of withdrawal would create excuses for
attacks on Israel and for a vigorous Israeli reprisal.
It is not the UN which draws international borders, but the nations
involved. Lebanon - as usual - was afraid to take responsibility, even on the question
of its own sovereignty. Hence the UN had no choice but to determine the IDF
withdrawal line - the Blue Line - using Resolution 425 as its starting point.
There has never before been such close cooperation between Israel and
the UN. Prime Minister Barak decided that to achieve international legitimacy
for completion of the withdrawal from Lebanon, UN instructions must be obeyed.
The Lebanese feel the UN decided against them, for example on Shaba'a area on
the Hermon slopes.
In many places and on many issues, including the South Lebanon Army and
its heavy weapons, Israel had to carry out painful adjustments to obtain a UN
agreement. For Israel, this is a new experiment. If it is successful and not
exploited to harm Israel - it may even open a new chapter in relations with the
United Nations.
Barak succeeded in winning international recognition sanctioned by the
UN for completing the withdrawal from Lebanon. But we must consider the
possibility that defining the Blue Line with Lebanon may have set a precedent
that will be used by the Syrians and Palestinians.
With the withdrawal, Israel actually returned to the military positions
it had held until the Litani River operation in 1978. The Syrians, too, demand
that Israel withdraw to the line of the military positions of June 4, 1967 -
and the Palestinians also demand a withdrawal in the West Bank to the June 4
lines