One month after fighting began in southern Lebanon, the United Nations Security Council last week passed a resolution calling for an end to the conflict. The resolution, which passed unanimously, was the subject of protracted negotiations and the compromises are evident in the final product. Both Israel and Hezbollah, the main parties in the conflict, have agreed to abide by its provisions -- as long as the other does. Yet a "cessation of hostilities" is by no means a peace: That -- along with the credibility of the U.N. itself -- depends on energetic and honest diplomacy. There has been little sign of that despite the tragedy that has descended -- again -- on southern Lebanon.
Since full-scale conflict broke out between Israel and Hezbollah, the Islamic organization that is the de facto government in southern Lebanon, there has been more dithering than diplomacy. The U.S., the only outside force with any influence in Israel -- and even that is limited -- has been reluctant to weigh in, preferring to use the opportunity to break Hezbollah, which Washington and Tel Aviv see as a destabilizing force in the region. Neither government was prepared to accept a ceasefire that merely stopped the fighting: They wanted additional steps that would ensure Hezbollah could not attack Israel.
Despite massive bombing attacks throughout Lebanon and an invasion of the south with ground forces, Hezbollah has withstood the assault. Its ability to stand up to superior Israeli forces and inflict pain on Israel itself with rocket attacks have provided a victory for the group. The deaths of Lebanese civilians and U.N. observers as a result of Israeli attacks have also done great damage to Israel's international image.