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.
 

© copyright 2000 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved