Can UN Resolution 1701 help end the Hezbollah-Israel fight?

Many politicians and diplomats have said the only solution to the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, that can bring peace and security to both Israel and Lebanon, must be political. Part of any such solution could well involve a resolution agreed to by the United Nations' Security Council just over 18 years ago, they say.

"The only off-ramp going forward is going to be a political deal," Randa Slim, director of the conflict resolution program at Washington-based think tank, the Middle East Institute, said this week. "Which is what [Resolution] 1701 — maybe a more empowered, more involved 1701, with more enforcement mechanisms — is all about." 

Today there is a lot of criticism of Resolution 1701, she conceded. But, as Slim pointed out during an online panel held on Thursday, until recently the understanding had actually brought 17 years of relative calm to the Lebanon-Israel border area.

What is Resolution 1701?

Resolution 1701, agreed upon unanimously by UNSC members in August of 2006, is widely acknowledged as having ended a brief-but-brutal bout of fighting between the armed wing of the Lebanese group, Hezbollah, and the Israeli military.

The 2006 conflict began in mid-July of that year when Hezbollah fighters entered Israel and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers near the border. Another eight Israeli soldiers were killed as a result of the operation.

Even prior to that, there had long been skirmishes between the two opponents. But after Hezbollah kidnapped their soldiers in 2006, Israel began an aerial bombing campaign in Lebanon, including Beirut. Israeli troops also invaded.

The Israeli government held the Lebanese government responsible for Hezbollah's actions, but Lebanese officials said they had nothing to do with it and appealed to the UNSC to intervene.

On August 11, 2006, the UNSC called for "full cessation of hostilities." Both Hezbollah and Israel then agreed to a cease-fire, under the conditions of Resolution 1701.

What does Resolution 1701 say?

The main point of the UNSC resolution was to establish a situation where Hezbollah and the Israeli military were not staring each other down across the border. It specified that both sides were to respect new rules in a zone between the Litani River and the Blue Line, the latter being an "interim" border drawn by the UN after earlier fighting and Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon.

This zone was to be controlled exclusively by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, along with the Lebanese army.

Resolution 1701 also specified that the Lebanese state and its own military should be the only armed group in Lebanon and that Hezbollah should disarm.

However, Resolution 1701 was passed under a certain set of UNSC bylaws that means none of these new rules could actually be enforced militarily. Those making sure that Resolution 1701 rules are obeyed were dependent on the cooperation of all involved. 

Has Resolution 1701 worked?

Over the years there have been multiple violations of Resolution 1701, with both sides trading accusations that the other is causing all the problems.

For example, in 2010, shooting started when trees claimed by the Lebanese were cut down by Israelis. In 2018, at a UNSC briefing, Israel accused Hezbollah of digging tunnels under the Blue Line, through which it could potentially mount attacks. At the same briefing, the Lebanese government complained that Israel violated Resolution 1701 almost daily, and that these violations, including flights over Lebanese borders, added up to around 1,800 incidents every year. 

In 2023, Hezbollah accused Israel of trying to annex more land in this area by building a security barrier. To protest this, locals demonstrated and Hezbollah set up a tent nearby. This was seen by the Israeli side as a provocation.

Despite all of this though, most observers have said that, on balance, Resolution 1701 has been comparatively effective and, up until the past year, the cease-fire it supported had mostly held.

Caught in the middle

UNIFIL, which has arounnd 10,000 troops, including a maritime task force, and which costs around $500 million (€453 million) annually, is caught in the middle, as are the Lebanese armed forces.

UNIFIL's job is to enforce Resolution 1701 rules and to provide a channel of communication between the Israeli and Lebanese armies. Observers have said UNIFIL's role in facilitating communication has been a success. But UNIFIL are not in charge of disarming Hezbollah, nor are they meant to communicate with the group. 

UNIFIL "has been a versatile and effective instrument of conflict management, within its narrow limits," Thanassis Cambanis, director of the think tank Century International, wrote in a 2018 report. Yet "despite its successes, both Israel and Hezbollah routinely attack UNIFIL's legitimacy in public."

For example, Israel has said UNIFIL is ineffective and should be strengthened so it can disarm Hezbollah, while Hezbollah has accused UNIFIL of spying for Israel.

As for the Lebanese military, the local army is not as strong as Hezbollah and critics have accused it of only having a symbolic presence in the south.

This week, as fighting increased along the border, with the Israeli army attempting to enter Lebanon and Hezbollah trying to prevent them, UNIFIL reported that Israel had asked them to withdraw from some of the positions they hold in the buffer zone.

UNIFIL, which is now "patrolling a battlefront" rather than a border, according to The Washington Post, has refused to move. Israel has said that Hezbollah also uses UNIFIL as "human shields."

Edited by: Michaela Cavanagh