UN produce classic fudge.

As far as UN resolutions go, it's a classic fudge, a thing designed to be all things to all people.

This is what allows The Huffington Post to headline, "Resolution Emerges: A major victory for US and Israel" and then link to this article, from which it would be very hard to work out where the US and Israel's great victory lies. It's a resolution that also allows the Guardian to headline, "Bush gives way on peace deal" linking to this story which justifies it's headline by including:

A draft United Nations resolution hammered out in New York calls for a 'cessation of hostilities' between Israel and Hizbollah, following what senior Foreign Office sources said was a climbdown by Washington, which had been holding out for a 'suspension' of fire. Under the latter wording, Israel could more easily have resumed bombing at any time it felt threatened.

It is being reported that the Lebanese are not yet happy with the wording as there is no call for Israel to immediately withdraw it's forces from Lebanon, but - although the ceasefire makes more demands than the military reality on the ground permits the US and Israel to make - there is no way that the resolution can be said to have been worth the destruction that the US have allowed the Israeli forces to carry out over the past couple of weeks.

The main difference between the US/Israeli position (I'm loath to include Blair in this any more as he's obviously at this point simply nodding to a US tune) and that of the rest of the world was that the rest of the world wanted an immediate ceasefire with no preconditions, saying that all those could be worked out later but the most important thing was that the violence should stop.

The US/Israeli position was that this was untenable as they required a "comprehensive" peace that would "last" which would require many preconditions before the US/Israelis could agree to it.

However, the draft resolution contains no such preconditions. Indeed, I would argue that - apart from some delicate changes of wordings designed to salvage Israeli pride - there is nothing in the resolution that wasn't achievable at the start of this conflict and before Israel launched her horrific assault on the civilian population of Lebanon.

For instance, I notice one major Israeli concession:

Israel has lifted its demand for the deployment of a new multinational force in southern Lebanon and agreed that UNIFIL, the United Nations force already in place, would oversee the cease-fire.

This is Israel giving up her key demand that fighting would not stop until a new force is deployed. There's more in what follows.

Let me go through the bits of the resolution that I find pertinent and show you what I mean. You can find the whole resolution here.

The preamble to the resolution is interesting. It states:

PP3. Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,

This seems to be an "unconditional" call for the Israeli troops to be released, however PP4 reads:

PP4: Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel,

This is the prisoner swap which was always on offer to the Israelis and which they said they would never accede to. The US have now acceded on Israel's behalf.

Now we come to the bit that says stop fighting:

OP1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;

There's a delicate bit of parsing going on here where Hizbullah (English spelling) have to "halt attacks" and the Israelis have to halt "offensive operations", meaning that if Hizbullah keep attacking Israel is allowed to respond. But the US/Israeli demands that they would not agree - and have not agreed - to a full ceasefire is undermined by the phrase, "full cessation of hostilities". If that means anything other than a full ceasefire, it'll take a better man than me to find the distinction.

OP5. Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty and authority;

This is merely a repeating of UN Resolution 1559, saying that the Lebanese government, or the relevant UN force, must control southern Lebanon and prevent the area from being run by Hizbullah. This is the part may that may prove unworkable as the Israelis, as I write this, have not established complete control over southern Lebanon, so they appear to be asking the UN force to do the rest of their dirty work for them.

Having called for a "full cessation of hostilities" and for humanitarian assistance for the people of Lebanon, it then goes on to state the terms of the permanent ceasefire. There are many interesting concessions in here:

· delineation of the international borders of Lebanon, especially in those areas where the border is disputed or uncertain, including in the Shebaa farms area;

This appears to offer Lebanon the return of the disputed Shebaa farms area, an area currently held by the Israelis. This represents a major concession by the Israelis and is indicative of the reality on the ground. Israel have not won a military victory and this is designed to sweeten the deal for the Lebanese.

· security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Lebanese armed and security forces and of UN mandated international forces deployed in this area;

· full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006) that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state;

This is where the US/Israeli line really sends the boat out, making demands that the reality on the ground gives them no rights to make. However, as these demands are consistent with UN Res 1559, it's hard to think of how anyone can argue with this.

· provision to the United Nations of remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession;

And interestingly, Israel are now prepared to hand over the maps of where their mines are, a demand that they have so far refused to accede to.

OP10. Expresses its intention, upon confirmation to the Security Council that the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel have agreed in principle to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 6 above, and subject to their approval, to authorize in a further resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter the deployment of a UN mandated international force to support the Lebanese armed forces and government in providing a secure environment and contribute to the implementation of a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution;

This invokes Chapter VII which will give the UN forces the ability to use force if the resolution terms are broken, something that traditional UN forces are reluctant to do. Although the US may be using this as a warning to Hizbullah that, failure to adhere to these terms will be met with full force.

So, in a nutshell, fighting will stop before any new troops are deployed. Hizbullah are to return the captured soldiers and Israel is to come to a deal to return Lebanese prisoners and the Shebaa farms area to Lebanon.

Apart from the demands that Hizbullah stay out of any area of Lebanon south of the Litani river, a demand that the Israelis have failed to enforce on the ground, there is nothing here that was not on offer before the Israelis started this disastrous war. Israel now will do a prisoner exchange in order to have it's soldiers returned, it just won't call it that.

And the Israeli army - which will, as I have always said, claim "victory" - will return the Shebaa farms to the Lebanese, making her the first victorious army ever to celebrate victory by handing over territory to it's enemy.

It's a classic fudge, designed to be all things to all people. Will Hizbullah buy it? I don't know, but I suspect they might.

However, was it worth the price in blood spilt and the damage running into billions of pounds to Lebanese infrastructure in order to obtain the wording in this resolution? Only a deluded fool would make such a claim, but there are plenty of them around.

There will be the usual suspects who will pop up and claim some sort of moral victory for the US/Israeli position, but the simple truth is that Israel's reputation has been put through the mangle both as a nation and as a fighting force only for her, in the end, to agree to the offer that was, essentially, always on the table.

Israel set out all those weeks ago to destroy Hizbullah as a fighting force. She has not succeeded. And more importantly, Hizbullah have proven that the days of Israel being able to attack her neighbours with impunity are over.

There is, as Condi stated, "a new Middle East", it's just not the one that she, or Bush, ever wanted.

Tags: Olmert, Bush, Blair, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Hamas, Hizbullah, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, UN resolution, neo-con, neo-cons, experiment,