Israeli attacks on residential areas in southern Beirut and its southern suburbs continue to recur, the most recent striking the densely populated neighborhood of Hay Madi early Tuesday morning. This latest assault adds to hundreds of ongoing attacks, constituting a breach of the “Declaration of Cessation of Hostilities and Related Commitments Regarding the Enhancement of Security Arrangements and Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701,” which both parties committed to on November 27, 2024. Al-Akhbar’s Omar Nashaba discusses in an article the hypocrisy apparent in Israel’s violation of this “Declaration”.

The “Declaration” affirmed that the United States and France recognize “that Lebanon and Israel seek to bring about a sustainable end to the current escalation of hostilities across the Blue Line,” the writer cited the agreement.

However, he wondered: “Yet, with Israel’s repeated hostilities, do the US and France still uphold this recognition? And is Israel genuinely willing to “take steps to create conditions conducive to a permanent and comprehensive solution“?

An examination of the commitments outlined in the declaration reveals that the Israeli aggression against Lebanon persists, while the Lebanese state has upheld all its obligations to the Americans and the French, Nashaba wrote.

He then touched on the commitments the official text states:

“Israel and Lebanon will implement a cessation of hostilities in accordance with the commitments detailed below: (…) The Government of Lebanon will prevent Hezbollah and all other armed groups within Lebanese territory from carrying out any operations against Israel.” As confirmed by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the Lebanese Army has deployed in the south, and Hezbollah “will refrain from carrying out any operations against Israel.” In return, “Israel” is expected to refrain from “any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, including civilian and military targets, or any other state targets, within Lebanese territory, whether by land, air, or sea.”

The second commitment in the text stipulates that “Israel and Lebanon recognize the importance of Security Council Resolution 1701 in achieving lasting peace and security and commit themselves to taking the necessary steps toward its full implementation without any violations.” The declaration’s wording suggests a phased process requiring “necessary steps” toward implementation. Accordingly, since November of last year, the Lebanese Army has taken measures in this direction in compliance with the agreement, extending its full authority south of the Litani River.

The third commitment involves subjecting “any sales or supplies of arms and related equipment to Lebanon to monitoring and regulation by the Government of Lebanon in order to prevent the reconstitution and rearmament of non-state armed groups in Lebanon.” In line with this, the Army has confiscated weapons, conducted patrols, and set up checkpoints in the South, the Bekaa, and across Beirut and its southern suburbs.

Since November 2024, the Lebanese Government has also committed to “(1) monitor and implement measures against any unauthorized entry of arms and related equipment into and through Lebanon…; (2) starting south of the Litani area, dismantle all facilities involved in the production of arms and related equipment and prevent the establishment of such facilities in the future; and (3) starting south of the Litani area, dismantle all infrastructure and military sites and confiscate all unauthorized weapons.”

Implementation of these commitments appears gradual, as the wording suggests, with the Lebanese government required to begin enforcement south of the Litani River, according to Al-Akhbar’s Nashaba.

“However, the text also clearly states that Lebanon must implement the agreement “upon the commencement of the cessation of hostilities.” Does this not mean that Israel’s failure to adhere to a real unchallenged “cessation of hostilities” obstructs the declaration’s fulfillment?” the Lebanese writer, who is specialist with legal affairs wondered.

He noted that ‘Israel’ argues that Lebanon’s incomplete implementation of the declaration justifies its military attacks.

“Yet this reasoning does not apply to Tuesday morning’s strike on Beirut’s southern suburb. First, because the text obliges Israel to refrain from “any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, including civilian and military targets,” in exchange for Lebanon preventing “Hezbollah and all other armed groups on Lebanese territory from carrying out any operations against Israel.” Second, because Israel did not notify UNIFIL, the US, or France in advance (as required by the agreement) of the alleged Lebanese violations. “

Nashaba argued that while the declaration states that “neither Israel nor Lebanon is restricted from exercising their inherent right to self-defense, in accordance with international law,” the US and France—two of the Zionist entity’s staunchest allies—often disregard international law’s constraints.

“Merely warning civilians to evacuate before an attack (which Israel failed to do before bombing Hay Madi neighborhood at dawn on Tuesday) does not suffice. International humanitarian law mandates the protection of civilians, distinguishing between military and civilian targets, ensuring proportionality to prevent excessive harm, and taking precautions to minimize damage. There is no doubt that Israel ignored these principles during its repeated “hostile actions” amid the ceasefire,” the author concluded.

* Article translated and edited by Al-Manar Hussein Moghniyah

Source: Al-Akhbar newspaper (translated and edited by Al-Manar English Website)