OPINION PIECE By Prime Minister: A vote for Jodie Belyea is a vote for a better future
 
AFIC boycotts NSW Iftar dinner, says it will donate funds for its own dinner to UNRWA instead
 
Julia Finn MP will donate to charities to support the people of Gaza
 
Families of Leppington to benefit as locations of 100 new public preschools revealed
 
The biggest investment in public preschools in NSW history.
 
Former Lord Mayor Paul Barber passing
 
PM Albanese hosts Philippines President, announces new MoU between countries
 
Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh submits government's resignation
 
Brian Edmund Brown fronts court after allegedly punching and killing security guard Mousa Al-Zaher
 
Reprisals are not Policy
 
OPINION PIECE By: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese MP
 
Minns Labor government neglects multicultural media
 
UN resolutions (from 425 to 1701) have done little to protect Lebanon from Israel





UN resolutions (from 425 to 1701) have done little to protect Lebanon from Israel 
By: Abbas Ali Murad
1/02/2024
(See translation in Arabic section)
Sydney - Middle East Times Int’l: Some in Lebanon and the region talk about international legitimacy, which derives its legitimacy from the United Nations and its Security Council, which only “sits” in proportion to those who have veto power. 
From time to time, religious leaders in Lebanon come to us with calls to implement international resolutions related to Lebanon and to neutralise Lebanon from the ongoing conflict in the region as if Lebanon is the aggressor and not the one being attacked.
Those who make these calls have their political reasons, but it seems that the foresight is one-sided and ignores reality because Lebanon did not invade the entity’s lands dozens of times. On the contrary, Israel is the one who always aggresses, and one of its deepest invasions into Lebanese territory was in 1982, where the occupation forces arrived in Beirut. After that invasion, the forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization left Lebanon, which would not have been present in Lebanon in the first place had it not been for the occupying forces displacing the Palestinians from their homes and refusing their return to them.
This was preceded by two invasions, the first in 1972 and the second in 1978. After this invasion, the Security Council issued UN Resolution No. 425, which explicitly stipulated that the occupation withdraw its forces from the south without restrictions or conditions.
The occupation did not implement Resolution 425 despite sending United Nations forces to supervise its implementation, and the aggression against Lebanon did not stop, as was the 1993 aggression, which lasted for seven days. In 1996, the occupation launched another aggression for 16 days under the pretext of stopping the resistance’s missiles that were seeking to liberate Lebanese territory. The occupied south, or what was known as the “border strip”, was administered and under the direct supervision of the occupation forces, the forces dealing with Israel, the Lahad Army, the “South Lebanon Army”.
Due to the failure to implement Resolution 425, resistance operations continued to liberate the occupied territories until the Israeli occupier was removed from most of the occupied Lebanese territories on May 25, 2000, without restrictions or conditions.
In 2006, Israel launched a major aggression against Lebanon with the aim of eliminating the resistance and its backbone, Hezbollah. The war, which lasted 33 days, ended with the defeat of the occupation, which was unable to implement any of its declared and undeclared goals from that war.
After that aggression, UN Resolution 1701 was issued, which called for a cessation of hostilities without a comprehensive ceasefire. The number of international emergency forces was strengthened and increased, in addition to the entry of additional forces from the Lebanese army to work on implementing the resolution.
 The resolution calls for a complete cessation of hostilities, based in particular on an immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all its attacks and an immediate cessation by Israel of all its military attacks.
The resolution affirms that it is necessary for the Lebanese government to extend its authority over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) and the relevant provisions of the Taif Agreement, in order to fully exercise its sovereignty.
Israel, as usual, did not fulfil its obligations before international law, and stop its violations of Resolution 1701, which exceeded 34,000 violations, according to statistics from the Lebanese authorities and the International Emergency Forces.
Although Israel was founded by a decision from the United Nations, the above shows how Israel deals with international resolutions, and this also applies to all international resolutions related to the Palestinian issue, which it did not implement any of them, but rather continued to expand and occupy more Palestinian and Arab lands, ignoring all resolutions. International resolutions, which amounted to more than 900 resolutions during the past 75 years in favour of the Palestinian people, the first and most important of which are Palestine Partition Resolution No. 181 of 1947 and Resolution No. 242 that followed the 1967 war, which stipulates the rejection of the occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands and demands that Israel withdraw its forces.
This Israeli disregard for international laws and Security Council and General Assembly resolutions was not met with any pressure from international institutions or the so-called international community, which turns a blind eye to, and even supports, Israel in the war of annihilation it is waging against the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Israeli ambitions for Lebanon’s water and oil resources are not hidden, and the invasions it carried out inside Lebanese territory are only the best evidence of that.
So, why bet on the international community and call for neutrality at a time when the national and Islamic resistance has proven that Israel was defeated from Lebanon not because of international or diplomatic resolutions, but because of the resistance, which still constitutes a strong deterrent factor for Israel not to think about invading Lebanon again?
Yes, it is in Lebanon’s interest to implement Resolution 1701, but not unilaterally. But the question remains: What are the guarantees that Israel will commit to implementing it at a time when the emergency forces stand as false witness to its non-implementation, as it did with Resolution 425 for 22 years?

 














Copyright 2007 mideast-times.com