Since they are now starting to talk about making the "return" of Shebaa Farms a condition to any ceasefire, it's worthwhile remembering what the real UN postition on this subject is, since I'm sure they'll conveniently forget this when it comes to putting pressure on Israel to make a deal.
Letter dated 26 October 2005 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, pursuant to the request of the Security Council expressed in the presidential statement of 19 October 2004 (S/PRST/2004/36), that I continue to report on the implementation of the resolution to the Council every six months.
Many Lebanese continue to maintain that Hizbollah is in fact not a militia, but a "legitimate resistance movement," fighting for the liberation of the Shebaa farms area from Israeli occupation. This interpretation of the status of the Shebaa farms, as I have repeatedly outlined not only in my previous reports on the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004) but also elsewhere, continues to stand in stark contrast to the position of the United Nations (see annex). I confirmed in my report to the Security Council of 16 June 2000 (S/2000/590) that Israel had fulfilled as of that date the requirements of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) that it "withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territory". The Council endorsed this conclusion in the statement of its President (S/PRST/2000/21) of 18 June 2000. Both the Council and I have repeatedly stated the position that the Shebaa farms area is not part of Lebanon. Therefore, any Lebanese "resistance" to "liberate" the area from continued Israeli occupation cannot be considered legitimate. In addition, even if the Lebanese claim to the Shebaa farms area were legitimate, it would be the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon only to address this claim in conformity with international law and relevant Security Council resolutions.
