used for hostile activities of any kind. As everyone was witnessing, that was indeed a big challenge. The new policy guidelines of the Lebanese Government further complicated UNIFIL’s ability to fulfil its mandate and those complicated the core of resolution 1701 and raised concern about the commitment of the Lebanese Government to extending its authority over all Lebanese territory and ensuring that there would be no outside weapons and no outside interference on its territory. Resolution 1701 required the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, but the new guidelines, in fact, were backing Hizbullah. Nawaf Salam, Lebanon’s representative, said the Council’s decision was very important, as the second anniversary approached of the adoption of the resolution that had established UNIFIL. Evidence of Lebanon’s compliance was represented by such moves as deployment of the army to south Lebanon. The reports submitted to the Council were taken seriously by Lebanon. It was Israel who had not fully implemented the resolution, who continued to violate its terms and who persisted in refusing to cooperate with the United Nations on the matter of cluster bombs. The question of Sheba’a Farms also remained unresolved. Was there any doubt about which party was responsible for failure to achieve full implementation of the resolution? Newspapers contained reports of Israeli officials refusing to meet with Lebanon on matters such as border discussions. Israel had also issued threats against Lebanon. A letter had been sent to urge the Secretary-General to press Israel on meeting its obligations under resolution 1701 (2006). See also List of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1801 to 1900 (2008–2009) References External links Text of the Resolution at undocs.org 1832 August 2008 events History of the Middle East