Security first

The United Nations is good at passing resolutions. It is, sadly, a little less effective at displaying resolve. As The Spectator went to press, Security Council discussions on the French-inspired resolution designed to deal with the conflict in Lebanon and Israel were dragging on. But whatever form of words the UN settles upon, the actions required by the international community seem to be implicitly understood by the French, the Americans and the British government. What will count in the days ahead is an unshakeable readiness to implement the steps required to provide both Lebanon and Israel with the security they deserve. And that will require the determination to tackle the root cause of instability in the region — the terrorist threat from Islamist groups such as Hezbollah and their sponsors in Tehran and Damascus.

The resolution wisely avoided making glib rhetorical concessions to those who have been demanding an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. For there to be progress towards agreement, Israel needs a security guarantee which makes good the failures of the past. Lebanon, meanwhile, requires appropriate international support if it is to recapture the hope felt during last year’s Cedar Revolution.

When Israel last withdrew from southern Lebanon, six years ago, the United Nations resolved that terrorist militias should be disarmed, not only to safeguard Israelis but also to help Lebanon develop a more stable and democratic political culture. The world appeared to realise that if Hezbollah were allowed to maintain and indeed expand its armed presence, then Israel’s security would be under constant threat, and Lebanon’s political development would be disastrously compromised by a force owing allegiance to the Islamist regime in Iran. But while UN Resolution 1559 seemed to recognise all this, the international community failed to act upon its own deliberations.