Extension for one year … and the fate of Resolution 1701 at stake

The Battle of the annual extension of the United Nations Interim Force in southern Lebanon (UNIFIL) is renewed, amid the escalation of American -Israeli pressure and the differences in positions within the Security Council, at a time when Beirut will fear that any reduction or withdrawal will lead to the fall of Resolution 1701, and the guarantees it carries for relative stability on the southern border.
The United States appears divided into the future of UNIFIL. Foreign Minister Marco Rubio is pushing to reduce her work, leading to her withdrawal within six months, in line with US President Donald Trump’s policy based on reducing Washington’s contributions to peacekeeping operations. On the other hand, the American envoy to Syria, Tom Brak, is offered to maintain the international force as a basic support factor for the army. This contrast reflects the absence of a unified American position, although many exclude Washington’s resort to the use of the veto in the Security Council. As for Israel, it adopts a clear position calling for an immediate end to the mission of UNIFIL. Its Foreign Minister, Jadaoun Saar, called on his American counterpart to pressure to achieve this goal, accusing the UN force of failing to prevent Hizbullah from stationing south of Litani. In the background of the Israeli position, a desire to get rid of international observers capable of documenting violations, in preparation for imposing a new reality on the border.
It should be noted that Israel, during its war on Lebanon, escalated its attacks on the UNIFIL forces, which sparked European and international condemnation and accusations of violating international humanitarian law. Experts believe that Tel Aviv aims to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations, in preparation for the reformulation of security arrangements in the south to serve its strategic interests. The Monday session of the Security Council that will vote on the French project is awaiting this project, as this project proposes an extension of UNIFIL for an additional year, with a prelude to a gradual and conditional withdrawal with the entire army control over the south and the progress towards a Lebanese -Israeli political settlement. However, the text did not specify an accurate time period for withdrawal, in a French attempt to combine the reassurance of Washington on the one hand, and to preserve the demand of Lebanon on the other hand, knowing that the positions of the European countries such as Italy and Spain as well as Russia and China support France in its project. An American -Israeli with Lebanon, within the framework of what is presented as a comprehensive peace for the region, including Lebanon and Syria, but Lebanon rejects this path. He explained that contacts with Israel are confined to the United States and France, without any third party. Thus, Lebanon places clear red lines: adhering to the armistice agreement and refusing to convert the extension to UNIFIL into a platform for normalization or bargaining on Resolution 1701. President Aoun confirmed yesterday that Lebanon adheres to the survival of UNIFIL until the full implementation of Resolution 1701, including the completion of the army’s deployment on the international borders. Lebanon considers that the presence of international forces is an essential umbrella in the face of Israeli violations, especially in light of the economic crises and the military weakness of the army. Certainly, according to a diplomatic source, that the struggle for the future of UNIFIL goes beyond a procedural debate in the Security Council, to reflect the balances of international and regional powers in the region. He says: Between the American -Israeli pressures on the one hand, the Lebanese -European position adheres to the necessity of the survival of these forces on the other hand, the battle of the extension turned into a real test: Will Resolution 1701 remain steadfast or fold his page to open the door to a new stage for Lebanon and the region?