Eurasia Press & News
As part of the international efforts to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and Hizbullah, politicians inside and outside Lebanon have reiterated the need to implement UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1701, which was adopted in August 2006 and ended the war between Israel and Hizbullah at that time. This resolution stipulates that the Lebanese government must extend its sovereignty over all of Lebanon’s territory and prohibits the presence of armed forces other than the Lebanese Armed Forces or UNIFIL south of the Litani River. Recently, however, some politicians and journalists in Lebanon have been arguing that implementing Resolution 1701 is not enough, especially given that, in the 18 years since its adoption, this resolution has not been implemented: Hizbullah retains its weapons and continues to gain strength, remains present south of the Litani River and along the Israeli border, and repeatedly involves Lebanon in conflicts with Israel. Accordingly, these elements call not to settle for implementing Resolution 1701 but to also implement Resolution 1559 from 2004, which calls for the disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias in the country. These elements argue that Resolution 1559 is the basis for all subsequent resolutions, including Resolution 1701, and that, as long as Hizbullah retains its weapons, Lebanon will continue to serve as a platform for Iran and its interests and will be embroiled in recurring cycles of conflict with Israel.
In response to these calls, Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who has been authorized by Hizbullah to negotiate on its behalf towards a settlement with Israel, stated that “the only international resolution [that will yield] a solution is 1701, while Resolution 1559 is already behind us and nothing remains of it.”[1] In an interview with the Kuwaiti daily Al-Jarida, Barri said that “Resolution 1701 canceled Resolution 1559,” and added: “Since 2006 Lebanon has been committed to Resolution 1701, and this is the only Resolution [still] in force, because nobody talks about 1559 [any longer]. Even [U.S. State Secretary Antony] Blinken mentions [Resolution] 1701 when he talks to me.”[2] Similarly, Prime Minister Najib Mikati said in a television interview on October 15, 2024, that “there is no need to link Resolution 1701 with other resolutions, such as Resolution 1559, for this gives rise to additional disputes.” He reiterated this position on October 25.[3]According to recent reports, the U.S. shares the position that Resolution 1701 alone cannot provide a sufficient guarantee for a ceasefire. U.S. Special Envoy Amos Hochstein recently sought to amend this resolution,[4] but Nabih Berri and Hizbullah firmly rejected the proposal.[5] It appears that France supports their position, as its foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, stated on October 24 that there is no need to change Resolution 1701 but only to establish a mechanism for implementing it.[6]
Articles recently published in the Lebanese press likewise highlighted the importance of implementing Resolution 1559. This report presents the calls by Lebanese politicians and journalists to implement Resolution 1559 and not settle for only implementing Resolution 1701.
Political Elements In Lebanon: Resolution 1559 Is The Basis And Must Be Implemented
As stated, Lebanese political figures have recently been calling for the implementation of Resolution 1559 in addition to Resolution 1701. For instance, Lebanese Forces party head Samir Geagea emphasized on October 2, 2024, during a meeting with the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, that “the practical and permanent solution to the existing situation is to return the decision-making to the Lebanese state, actualize its authority, implement the international resolutions, particularly 1701 and 1559, and enable the state’s military and security institutions, primarily the Lebanese Armed Forces, to impose the state’s sovereignty over all Lebanese territory…”[7]
Furthermore, on October 12, 2024, the Lebanese Forces party organized a gathering attended by many politicians and public figures. At the conclusion of this meeting, the party issued a “roadmap for the salvation of Lebanon,” which called for a ceasefire and for the election of a president who would commit in advance to implement the international resolutions, particularly Resolutions 1559, 1680 (which aimed to expedite the implementation of Resolution 1559) and 1701.[8]
The leader of the Kataeb (Phalanges) party, MP Sami Al-Gemayel, expressed similar views back in July, stating in an interview with LBCI that “Resolution 1559 encapsulates what must be done in order to save Lebanon” and that, “had it been implemented, there would have been no need for Resolution 1701.” He added: “Resolution 1559 is the basis [for the subsequent resolutions], and stresses Lebanon’s right to limit the possession of weapons to the army and to disarm the militias. As long as it is not implemented, the lives of the Lebanese will continue to be suspended indefinitely.”[9]
Similarly, the Lebanese news agency Al-Markazia recently quoted Lebanese opposition sources as saying that “half-solutions must no longer be discussed” and that Resolution 1701 “is no longer sufficient to prevent [the recurrence] of the October 8 [2023] scenario [i.e., Hizbullah’s decision to join Hamas in the war against Israel].” According to these sources, “there is no choice but to implement Resolution 1559, which restricts weapons to the legitimate Lebanese [military] forces.” They added that “Resolution 1701 includes [Resolution] 1559, and there is no choice but to go back to this fundamental solution in order to avoid falling periodically into all-out war…”[10]
Lebanese Journalist: Resolution 1559 Is The Most Important Document In Lebanese History
In his October 15, 2024 column in Al-Nahar, Lebanese journalist Ali Hamada, known for his opposition to Hizbullah holding weapons, likewise stressed the importance of Resolution 1559. He wrote: “Many politicians and media figures close to Hizbullah came out strongly against the renewed discussion of UNSC Resolution 1559 from September 2004… In the past year [since the outbreak of the fighting between Hizbullah and Israel on October 8, 2023], the call to implement Resolution 1701 was met with accusations of treason and with bloodshed, and [those who called for it] were labeled ‘internal Zionists’ [in Lebanon]. But miraculously, after Hizbullah received devastating blows from the Israelis and its Secretary-General, Hassan Nasrallah, was eliminated along with most of the [organization’s] senior command, Resolution 1701 [suddenly] became an urgent national demand that Hizbullah does not oppose, and which Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri is promoting…
“Suddenly, the demand to implement Resolution 1701 is no longer [described by Hizbullah as] an Israeli demand. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri insisted that it must be implemented and effectively consigned the most important resolution on this matter – namely Resolution 1559 – to history. However, reality tells us that the exact opposite is true, because the source of authority for Resolution 1701 is definitely Resolution 1559 and then Resolution 1680. The former explicitly addresses the need to disarm the remaining militias in Lebanon, while the latter underscores the need for the Lebanese state to fully control its borders, on land, in the sea, and in the air.
“As for the Taif Agreement,[11] it is the source of authority for all these resolutions that serve the state’s rationale and [the goal of] imposing the state’s sovereignty over all illegal situations. [The existence of] Hizbullah is an illegal situation, and its weapons are illegal. [Lebanon’s] entire political echelon – which was cowardly throughout the previous period, since [Hizbullah’s] takeover of Beirut and Mount Lebanon[12] and later in the Doha Agreement[13] – remained silent in the face of Hizbullah’s weapons and indirectly granted it legitimacy by referencing the so-called ‘resistance’ [that is enshrined] in the guiding principles of all Lebanese governments. This amounts to collusion and submission, and handing the state over to Hizbullah.[14]
“Most of Lebanon’s political echelon evaded [the issue of] Resolution 1559, although it is the most important document in Lebanon’s history… In any case, time passed and talk [eventually] resumed about this resolution, because it is fundamental, along with the Taif Agreement. Some of the experts should know that this resolution is based, word for word, on the language of the Taif Agreement, which all of us Lebanese accepted as the constitution of the Lebanese republic. Therefore, Resolution 1559 has never been abandoned and never will be abandoned, no matter what Hizbullah and its allies do… This resolution was pushed aside for over 20 years, but then the international community went back to it for one simple reason: This resolution, along with the Taif Agreement, is the only thing protecting Lebanon. Not Hizbullah’s missiles, not Iran’s [military] parades, and not the yelling on TV – just the rationale of the state, which is anchored in the constitution and the law and in the unity of the constitutional institutions that are above every party or faction.
“The decision of Hizbullah, inspired by Iran, to keep fighting will deepen the tragedy that afflicts the Lebanese. The time of Hizbullah’s illegitimate weapons is over. We must return to the state and to the international legitimacy, starting with the relevant resolutions, chief of them Resolution 1559. [This resolution] is not against Hizbullah; it is a peerless resolution for the sake of Lebanon. Therefore, it will remain on the table in every difficult trial.”[15]
Senior Official In Lebanese Forces Party: Implementing 1559 And Disarming Hizbullah Are Conditions For A New Beginning In Lebanon
In an October 14 article titled “Why Has the International Community Moved from [Resolution] 1701 to [Resolution] 1559?”, Charles Jabbour, head of the media and communications authority in Samir Geagea’s Lebanese Forces party, which is known for its opposition to Hizbullah, wrote: “…If the Taif Agreement had been implemented and Hizbullah had given up its weapons like the other militias, neither Resolution 1559 nor Resolution 1701 would have been passed. The attempt to paint Resolution 1559 as an international and Israeli plot against Hizbullah is a misleading distortion [of the facts], because this resolution is derived from the [Lebanese] constitution, which was violated by leaving the illegal weapons [in Hizbullah’s possession] under the joint Syrian and Iranian influence over Lebanon.
“Although Resolution 1701 explicitly refers to [the need to implement] Resolutions 1559 and 1680, the main problem lies in Hizbullah’s weapons. If these weapons had been handed over to the state, the July 2006 war – which necessitated passing resolution 1701 – would have never broken out, and the October 2023 war wouldn’t have either. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to strive for a ceasefire between Israel and Hizbullah, which will no doubt collapse in a few years, during which Lebanon will exist in [a state of] utmost chaos due to Hizbullah’s weapons. The time has come to implement Resolution 1559 so that Hizbullah will hand over its weapons to the state – because otherwise Lebanon will continue to be a platform for Iran and a troubled and unstable region.
“The last thing the Lebanese citizen wants is the achievement of a ceasefire between Israel and Hizbullah that will leave Lebanon in a state of cold war, awaiting the circumstances that will transform it into hot [war]. The Lebanese citizen wants his country to regain its true sovereign role, but this is impossible as long as Hizbullah doesn’t surrender its weapons. If it does surrender them, this will be a true opportunity to implement the constitution, return to the [March 1949] ceasefire agreement [between Lebanon and Israel] and, for the very first time, leave April 13, 1975 [the outbreak of Lebanon’s civil war] behind us.
“Lebanon now faces a historic opportunity to end the periodic hot and cold wars that have turned it into an arena of chaos, and to turn over a new leaf for the future Lebanon. But this leaf cannot be turned without implementing Resolution 1559…
Hamas [October 7, 2023] operation, behind which stands Iran and which was supported by Hizbullah,, caused Israel – behind which stands the U.S. – to decide to eliminate ‘the arms of the Iranian military ring’ [i.e. the Iranian proxies] in Gaza, Beirut and Damascus, which threaten Tel Aviv. This caused Washington to change its strategy and trade its policy of ignoring the expansion of the Iranian role, [which has been ongoing] since September 11, 2001, for a policy of ending this Iranian role, which poses an existential threat to Israel… The one who benefits from all this is Lebanon, since severing its ties with Iran will restore its sovereignty, and along with it the effectiveness of the role of the state.”[16]
