Introduction

The current ceasefire proposal between Israel and Hezbollah, which took effect on November 27, 2024, has several notable differences from United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, adopted in 2006. While both aim to establish peace and security along the Israel-Lebanon border, their specific provisions and enforcement mechanisms reflect the evolving geopolitical landscape and the complexities of the ongoing conflict.

Key Differences between the Current Ceasefire Proposal and Resolution 1701

Scope of Hostilities

Current Proposal:

The ceasefire is framed as a two-month halt to hostilities, with an emphasis on a potential permanent cessation. It requires Hezbollah to cease armed activities in southern Lebanon and allows for Israeli military operations if Hezbollah violates the agreement.

Resolution 1701:

This resolution called for an immediate and full cessation of hostilities following the 2006 conflict. It aimed for a long-term solution without specifying an initial duration for the ceasefire, focusing instead on establishing a buffer zone free of armed personnel except for Lebanese forces and UN peacekeepers.

Withdrawal of Forces

Current Proposal:

The agreement stipulates that Israeli forces will gradually withdraw from southern Lebanon over a period of 60 days. The Lebanese Army is expected to take control of the area previously occupied by Israeli troops.

Resolution 1701:

It mandated Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon but did not specify a timeline or conditions for this withdrawal. The resolution emphasized that only Lebanese armed forces and UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) should operate in the region south of the Litani River.

Disarmament of Hezbollah

Current Proposal:

While it calls for Hezbollah to end its armed presence in southern Lebanon, it does not explicitly mandate disarmament or the complete removal of Hezbollah’s military capabilities. Instead, it emphasizes monitoring by international forces and Lebanese authorities.

Resolution 1701:

This resolution explicitly required the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, asserting that no weapons or authority should exist outside that of the Lebanese state. It aimed to ensure that only state-sanctioned forces would operate within Lebanon.

Enforcement Mechanisms

Current Proposal:

An international committee led by the United States is proposed to oversee compliance with the ceasefire agreement. However, concerns remain about how effectively this committee will enforce violations and ensure accountability from both parties.

Resolution 1701:

It authorized UNIFIL to monitor compliance with its terms but faced challenges in enforcement due to ongoing tensions and violations by both Israel and Hezbollah in subsequent years. The resolution also called for increased troop strength for UNIFIL but did not establish a robust mechanism for real-time enforcement against violations.

Conclusion

In summary, while both the current ceasefire proposal and Resolution 1701 share common goals of reducing violence and promoting stability along the Israel-Lebanon border, they differ significantly in their specific provisions regarding hostilities, force withdrawals, disarmament requirements, and enforcement mechanisms.

The current proposal reflects a more immediate response to ongoing conflicts while navigating a complex political landscape that has evolved since Resolution 1701 was enacted nearly two decades ago.