Politics | United Nations
The UN, Resolution 1559, and Israel
Much has been made of UN Resolution 1559, calling for the disarming of Hezbollah. Israel has repeatedly called for its implementation, and used it to justify its actions. Unfortunately, there are some weaknesses in that argument.
First, resolution 1559 is merely a guideline. It was not passed under chapter 7, which implies that it has no binding authority. In essence, Israel cannot use that resolution as a cover for its actions. Indeed, the same resolution reaffirms and reiterates the sovereignty of Lebanon, which is now being violated.
Second, Israel’s legal argument does not consider the several UN resolutions that Israel itself is in violation of. By one account, Israel has been the subject of 138 United Nations resolutions against it. This excludes the many resolutions which the US vetoed. For some interesting reading on this issue, read the following:
- The Economist: Iraq, Israel & the United Nations
- Open Letter to George W. Bush Re. Israel’s defiance of UN resolutions.
- UN Resolutions against Israel: 1995-1992
- US Vetoes of UN Resolutions critical of Israel: 1972-2006
While this suggests that Israel is in serious violation of UN resolutions, it is important to underscore that the violation would be even graver with a more equal balance of power. UN resolutions that have been passed did not get the US veto. Necessarily, therefore, they can be assumed to have been already watered down to avoid harsh criticism of Israel. Equally, the west has generally been supportive of Israel’s ‘right to exist’, and surprisingly no UN resolutions have called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank or Gaza – asking instead for a negotiated peace only. It is an interesting, if rhetorical, question to ask - had the balance of power been more equal, would the UN resolutions against Israel have been even more damning?
Finally, a word about the United Nations. The UN receives significant flak for being ineffective, particularly from the United States. The impotent Unifil peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon is an excellent example. But why? After all the UN Security Council is made up of member states, so is it not them that are to blame?
In this case, the Security Council is weak because the United States makes it so. By selectively using the UN to further its agenda of supporting Israel, vetoing resolutions it does not like, and allowing Israel to ignore the Council’s resolutions at will, the US has made the UN a minor pawn in the larger game.
Equally, by ignoring Syria and Iran, who are significant regional players with leverage over Hezbollah, the US has suggested disinterest in a diplomatic solution. Through this policy of not negotiating, and by allowing Israel to redraw the map, the US harms the very credibility of UN resolutions that it claims to support.
Mr. Bush is right in saying the UN is irrelevant. He should know. He made it so.
Discussion
3 comments for “The UN, Resolution 1559, and Israel”
Post a comment
This is a very complicated mess. It may be fashionable to criticise Israel for bullying Lebanon, but many fail to see the justification of Israel’s actions. Many of today’s criticisms are nothing but political posturing. Israel must defend itself from Hezbollah, a terrorist organization who’s bent on destroying it’s very existence since the Lebanese government, the UN and anyone for that matter have failed to coral Hezbollah who is getting unrestricted support from Syria and Iran.
I cannot deny some truth in the position that Israel must defend itself from Hezbollah, as I admit in my previous post. However, one must also ask if a) its actions are justified in the larger moral and legal context, and b) does this action really make Israel safer?
This post answers only the first question, by pointing out the action is not legally justified, while avoiding a moral discussion.
The second question is, however, very pertinent to your claim because IMO this action does not make Israel much safer in the long-term. Instead, it can be argued that this action feeds anti-Israeli sentiment, strengthens organizations such as Hezbollah, and weakens moderate political leaders such as Mahmood Abbas. It is, essentially, counterproductive. In fact, the very idea that grassroots organizations such as Hamas or Hezbollah can be wiped out, may be wishful thinking far removed from reality in the Middle East.
And finally, on your point of coraling Hezobollah, I agree that it would be desirable. There are, however, other ways of doing it. And that Hezbollah has not been controlled does not take anything away from the fact that Israel too has not been coralled, violates the UN at will, and receives unrestricted and much more support from the US.
You may also want to read a related post and this article from the FT, about the Middle East in general.
you’ve been tagged, Dweep