Condemnation was quick this past weekend as Israel broke the UN-brokered ceasefire with Hezbollah by launching a commando raid in eastern Lebanon. While it is easy to understand why the international community in deeply concerned about the violation, it is more difficult to comprehend why they are suprised by Israel’s actions. When a ceasefire agreement is created in close consultation with one party and the resulting document favours that side, a lasting peace is unlikely.
Israel defended its raid by arguing that it was defensive in nature. This claim is particularly ludicrous given that Israel regularly labels war crimes carried out by the Israel Defense Forces (a misnomer if there ever was one) as defensive measures. The empirical distinction between offensive and defensive actions is crucial, as the ceasefire agreement allows Israel to conduct defensive actions. Taking a look at the text of Security Council resolution 1701, the UN “calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations [emphasis added].
An agreement that allows Israel to conduct so-called defensive military operations while continuing to occupy Lebanon, yet does not allow Hezbollah to respond, is bound to fail. Without the unexpected self-restraint on Hezbollah’s behalf the region would once again be in flames. And if and when it does erupt, the United Nations will bear much of the blame.