عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

What Are the Mechanisms for Implementing the Decisions of the Arab-Islamic Summit?

Leaders taking part in the Arab-Islamic Summit in Riyadh pose for a group photo. (SPA)
Leaders taking part in the Arab-Islamic Summit in Riyadh pose for a group photo. (SPA)
TT
TT

What Are the Mechanisms for Implementing the Decisions of the Arab-Islamic Summit?

Leaders taking part in the Arab-Islamic Summit in Riyadh pose for a group photo. (SPA)
Leaders taking part in the Arab-Islamic Summit in Riyadh pose for a group photo. (SPA)

The League of Arab States is taking practical moves to implement the decisions issued by the extraordinary joint Arab-Islamic summit, hosted by Riyadh, on Saturday.

In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, Jamal Rushdi, spokesman for the Arab League’s Secretary-General, confirmed that the decisions taken at the summit constitute “an action plan that the General Secretariat of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation will put into immediate effect.”

Rushdi stressed that work was underway to implement the decisions, whether through the relevant agencies in the General Secretariat, or in coordination with Arab ambassadors abroad.

He pointed to moves aimed at monitoring Israeli crimes and legally documenting war crimes committed by the Israeli forces in the Palestinian territories.

The Arab-Islamic summit had issued a resolution to “break the siege on Gaza, and impose the immediate entry of Arab, Islamic, and international humanitarian aid convoys, including food, medicine, and fuel, into the Strip, and to invite international organizations to participate in this process.”

The summit resolution also included a request to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to initiate an immediate investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israel against the Palestinian people in all the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem.

Barakat Al-Farra, the former Palestinian ambassador to Egypt, stressed that implementing many of the decisions requires coordination with influential countries on the international arena, most notably the United States, to pressure Israel.

Al-Farra told Asharq Al-Awsat that a decision such as breaking the siege and allowing the entry of aid into Gaza cannot be achieved except through coordination with the United States. He noted that Israel “will not hesitate to bomb any trucks or aid entering the territory of the Gaza Strip without prior coordination.”

The Palestinian diplomat added that the Arab and Islamic group possesses many pressure cards that can be used to influence Israel. He emphasized that many of these countries have political and economic relations with Tel Aviv, which can be used to push the occupation authorities to stop committing genocide against the Palestinian people.

Dr. Mohammed Mahmoud Mahran, professor of international law and lecturer at Alexandria University, said obstructing the delivery of humanitarian aid was a blatant violation by Israel of its obligations under international humanitarian law.

In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, Mahran said Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates the right to deliver humanitarian aid without obstacles to civilians in the occupied territories, and Article 59 of the same convention obligates the occupying authority to allow the passage of all relief shipments.

Regarding the possibility of “imposing the entry of aid,” he said in normal circumstances, this can be achieved by resorting to the UN Security Council to issue a resolution obligating Israel to allow the entry of aid without conditions or restrictions, through states and humanitarian organizations.”

He continued: “Unfortunately, the Security Council has repeatedly been unable to make any decisions related to the situation in Gaza,” pointing to how the US used its veto power to scuttle any resolutions against Israel.

Most Viewed

 
 
Features

UN Resolution 1701 at the Heart of the Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire

An empty United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) observation tower on the Israel-Lebanon border, near the southern Lebanese city of Al-Khiam, as seen from northern Israel, 26 November 2024, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. (EPA)
An empty United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) observation tower on the Israel-Lebanon border, near the southern Lebanese city of Al-Khiam, as seen from northern Israel, 26 November 2024, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. (EPA)
TT
TT

UN Resolution 1701 at the Heart of the Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire

An empty United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) observation tower on the Israel-Lebanon border, near the southern Lebanese city of Al-Khiam, as seen from northern Israel, 26 November 2024, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. (EPA)
An empty United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) observation tower on the Israel-Lebanon border, near the southern Lebanese city of Al-Khiam, as seen from northern Israel, 26 November 2024, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. (EPA)

In 2006, after a bruising monthlong war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah armed group, the United Nations Security Council unanimously voted for a resolution to end the conflict and pave the way for lasting security along the border.

But while relative calm stood for nearly two decades, Resolution 1701’s terms were never fully enforced.

Now, figuring out how to finally enforce it is key to a US-brokered deal that brought a ceasefire Wednesday.

In late September, after nearly a year of low-level clashes, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah spiraled into all-out war and an Israeli ground invasion. As Israeli jets pound deep inside Lebanon and Hezbollah fires rockets deeper into northern Israel, UN and diplomatic officials again turned to the 2006 resolution in a bid to end the conflict.

Years of deeply divided politics and regionwide geopolitical hostilities have halted substantial progress on its implementation, yet the international community believes Resolution 1701 is still the brightest prospect for long-term stability between Israel and Lebanon.

Almost two decades after the last war between Israel and Hezbollah, the United States led shuttle diplomacy efforts between Lebanon and Israel to agree on a ceasefire proposal that renewed commitment to the resolution, this time with an implementation plan to try to reinvigorate the document.

What is UNSC Resolution 1701? In 2000, Israel withdrew its forces from most of southern Lebanon along a UN-demarcated “Blue Line” that separated the two countries and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in Syria. UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) peacekeepers increased their presence along the line of withdrawal.

Resolution 1701 was supposed to complete Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and ensure Hezbollah would move north of the Litani River, keeping the area exclusively under the Lebanese military and UN peacekeepers.

Up to 15,000 UN peacekeepers would help to maintain calm, return displaced Lebanese and secure the area alongside the Lebanese military.

The goal was long-term security, with land borders eventually demarcated to resolve territorial disputes.

The resolution also reaffirmed previous ones that call for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon — Hezbollah among them.

“It was made for a certain situation and context,” Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese army general, told The Associated Press. “But as time goes on, the essence of the resolution begins to hollow.”

Has Resolution 1701 been implemented? For years, Lebanon and Israel blamed each other for countless violations along the tense frontier. Israel said Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force and growing arsenal remained, and accused the group of using a local environmental organization to spy on troops.

Lebanon complained about Israeli military jets and naval ships entering Lebanese territory even when there was no active conflict.

“You had a role of the UNIFIL that slowly eroded like any other peacekeeping with time that has no clear mandate,” said Joseph Bahout, the director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy at the American University of Beirut. “They don’t have permission to inspect the area without coordinating with the Lebanese army.”

UNIFIL for years has urged Israel to withdraw from some territory north of the frontier, but to no avail. In the ongoing war, the peacekeeping mission has accused Israel, as well as Hezbollah, of obstructing and harming its forces and infrastructure.

Hezbollah’s power, meanwhile, has grown, both in its arsenal and as a political influence in the Lebanese state.

The Iran-backed group was essential in keeping Syrian President Bashar Assad in power when armed opposition groups tried to topple him, and it supports Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Yemen. It has an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, including precision-guided missiles pointed at Israel, and has introduced drones into its arsenal.

Hanna says Hezbollah “is something never seen before as a non-state actor” with political and military influence.

How do mediators hope to implement 1701 almost two decades later? Israel's security Cabinet approved the ceasefire agreement late Tuesday, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office. The ceasefire began at 4 am local time Wednesday.

Efforts led by the US and France for the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah underscored that they still view the resolution as key. For almost a year, Washington has promoted various versions of a deal that would gradually lead to its full implementation.

International mediators hope that by boosting financial support for the Lebanese army — which was not a party in the Israel-Hezbollah war — Lebanon can deploy some 6,000 additional troops south of the Litani River to help enforce the resolution. Under the deal, an international monitoring committee headed by the United States would oversee implementation to ensure that Hezbollah and Israel’s withdrawals take place.

It is not entirely clear how the committee would work or how potential violations would be reported and dealt with.

The circumstances now are far more complicated than in 2006. Some are still skeptical of the resolution's viability given that the political realities and balance of power both regionally and within Lebanon have dramatically changed since then.

“You’re tying 1701 with a hundred things,” Bahout said. “A resolution is the reflection of a balance of power and political context.”

Now with the ceasefire in place, the hope is that Israel and Lebanon can begin negotiations to demarcate their land border and settle disputes over several points along the Blue Line for long-term security after decades of conflict and tension.