Ambassador Dr. Hisham Hamdan

Yes, I have always called, for over forty years, for the return to the application of the Armistice Agreement. The Armistice Agreement is extremely important because it establishes the foundations of Lebanon's national rights in the face of Israel. It is binding, as it was issued by Article 40 of Chapter VII of the Charter, and it remains in effect.

There were many American attempts in the 1990s to end this agreement and quietly consign it to oblivion. We faced many of these attempts at the time through our mission at the Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York. However, what the U.S. could not achieve at the UN until 1999, it has either achieved or is close to achieving on the ground.

After Israel's withdrawal in 2000, the United Nations stated that Israel had implemented Resolution 425. However, Assad's Syria, and Iran through its Lebanese military arm Hezbollah, and the Lebanese authority under Syria’s control, rejected this claim because Israel had not withdrawn from the Shebaa Farms and Kfar Shuba Hills. Instead of demanding the demarcation of land borders by the Armistice Agreement, they raised the banner of continuing resistance. The position of Assad's Syria, along with Iran and their allied authorities, in refusing to resort to the Armistice Agreement kept the South an open battlefield, not to attack Israel and liberate Palestine, as some simple-minded people in our country imagine, but rather to strengthen their bargaining chips for their interests.

The 2006 war came—the 33-day war—which shelved the 2000 victory and the issue of fully implementing Resolution 425. The victory after that was limited to preventing Israel from reoccupying the South, justifying the retention of weapons as part of the deterrence equation. Had the resistance and its supporters in 2000 accepted the return to the Armistice Agreement, there would have been no 2006 war, no destruction, no death, no displacement, and no massive increase in debt burdening the Lebanese citizens.

Iran, its military arm, and the pillars of the regime attached to them continued to reject calls for the Armistice Agreement, allowing the adoption of the Blue Line instead of returning to the internationally recognized borders. Israel and the United States claimed a legal dispute over the drawing of these internationally recognized borders, and the Lebanese side remained silent instead of demanding the application of Article 35 of the UN Charter to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice. Israel, the U.S., Iran, and Hezbollah do not want the war to stop, but why did the authority controlling the state remain silent?

Resolution 1701 of 2006 was adopted, practically turning the Blue Line into the international border. Rules of engagement were established that satisfied both sides of the conflict, while the security arrangements stipulated in the Armistice Agreement between the Lebanese state and Israel were forgotten. The authority controlling the state remained silent, not because of incapacity or lack of strategic thinking, but due to complicity with treasonous undertones. Israel achieved what it wanted, and as a result, the maritime borders were demarcated, and Lebanon lost a portion of its territorial waters and national wealth. The war continued.

The time for decisiveness has come, and both sides have now abandoned the rules of engagement. The United Nations did not intervene because Resolution 1701 was not issued under Chapter VII. Prime Minister Mikati timidly called for a return to the Armistice Agreement, and we celebrated this. But then he forgot about it and began repeating the call for a return to Resolution 1701. The former leader of the Progressive Socialist Party became aware of the matter and recently called for a return to the Armistice Agreement, and it is said he convinced Speaker Berri of it. However, we haven't heard Berri speak on the issue.

The U.S. president’s envoy came again, saying that there would be no amendment to the resolution, only some additions. Some commentators expect that clauses might be added to place this resolution under Article 40 of Chapter VII. However, discussing this matter and achieving any practical outcome will take several weeks, by which time Israel would have occupied a large part of the South. Enacting Resolution 1701 under Chapter VII would effectively terminate the Armistice Agreement and shift the current situation to the framework of Resolution 242 of 1967 or the Tripartite Agreement. This would allow Israel to continue occupying the South and include it in the comprehensive settlement.

But what can we expect from leaders who have regularly engaged in betrayal and from people who have regularly applauded them?

Share

Comments

Add your comment