New York Times Editorial - One month later in Lebanon

New York Times Editorial - One month later in Lebanon
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: August 13, 2006

It took unconscionably long - almost a month - for the UN Security Council to produce a formula to end the fighting in Lebanon. While the diplomats dithered, hundreds of Lebanese and Israelis died, one-third of Lebanon's population was uprooted, and new layers of anger and fear were sown on both sides of the border.

The resolution that the Council finally passed Friday night will have to be put into effect as quickly and thoroughly as possible, and must lead to a lasting political solution that can avoid future conflicts. That will require more than just an immediate halt to hostilities by both sides and an early withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. It will also require the dispatch of an international military force with sufficient authority and firepower to guarantee that there can be no repeat of the Hezbollah provocations that set off this conflict.

The Council's resolution represents a compromise between the United States and France, and standing behind them, Israel and Lebanon. Washington wanted Israeli withdrawals linked to a political settlement and a strong new international force. France wanted Israeli withdrawal to come first.

They finally agreed to combine elements of both approaches, with some of the language on Israeli withdrawals left elliptical and some of the language on the international force left implicit. These locutions must not be allowed to unravel the consensus that more than a mere cease-fire is needed.

Sealing the border against Hezbollah infiltrations into Israel will not be enough. Hezbollah has rockets that can be fired from deep inside Lebanon at targets deep inside Israel. These must be stopped, ideally by the full disarmament of Hezbollah that the Security Council first called for in 2004.

This ugly, unnecessary war had many losers and no real winners. Hezbollah will boast that it stood up to four weeks of Israeli firepower. But it cannot disguise the cost that all of Lebanon has paid. Israel incurred civilian and military losses and inflamed Islamic and world opinion without succeeding in destroying Hezbollah or its rocket arsenal.

Washington, which rightly stood by Israel but wrongly refused to call for a cease-fire or engage in meaningful diplomacy with Syria, also paid a price that could further complicate problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. A rapid and effective follow- through on Friday's resolution could make up for some of these losses. Anything less will only compound the damage already done.
It took unconscionably long - almost a month - for the UN Security Council to produce a formula to end the fighting in Lebanon. While the diplomats dithered, hundreds of Lebanese and Israelis died, one-third of Lebanon's population was uprooted, and new layers of anger and fear were sown on both sides of the border.

The resolution that the Council finally passed Friday night will have to be put into effect as quickly and thoroughly as possible, and must lead to a lasting political solution that can avoid future conflicts. That will require more than just an immediate halt to hostilities by both sides and an early withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. It will also require the dispatch of an international military force with sufficient authority and firepower to guarantee that there can be no repeat of the Hezbollah provocations that set off this conflict.

The Council's resolution represents a compromise between the United States and France, and standing behind them, Israel and Lebanon. Washington wanted Israeli withdrawals linked to a political settlement and a strong new international force. France wanted Israeli withdrawal to come first.

They finally agreed to combine elements of both approaches, with some of the language on Israeli withdrawals left elliptical and some of the language on the international force left implicit. These locutions must not be allowed to unravel the consensus that more than a mere cease-fire is needed.

Sealing the border against Hezbollah infiltrations into Israel will not be enough. Hezbollah has rockets that can be fired from deep inside Lebanon at targets deep inside Israel. These must be stopped, ideally by the full disarmament of Hezbollah that the Security Council first called for in 2004.

This ugly, unnecessary war had many losers and no real winners. Hezbollah will boast that it stood up to four weeks of Israeli firepower. But it cannot disguise the cost that all of Lebanon has paid. Israel incurred civilian and military losses and inflamed Islamic and world opinion without succeeding in destroying Hezbollah or its rocket arsenal.

Washington, which rightly stood by Israel but wrongly refused to call for a cease-fire or engage in meaningful diplomacy with Syria, also paid a price that could further complicate problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. A rapid and effective follow- through on Friday's resolution could make up for some of these losses. Anything less will only compound the damage already done.
It took unconscionably long - almost a month - for the UN Security Council to produce a formula to end the fighting in Lebanon. While the diplomats dithered, hundreds of Lebanese and Israelis died, one-third of Lebanon's population was uprooted, and new layers of anger and fear were sown on both sides of the border.