In the short term, the solution hashed out by Washington and Paris settles most of Israel’s concerns about its border with Lebanon. Down the road, however, it sets traps that might endanger not only Israel, but also the credibility of the U.N. Security Council.

Israel’s war has led to a seismic shift in perceptions. European and some Arab leaders now understand that no matter how loudly their constituents curse the Jews, the Security Council cannot ignore its own resolutions and leave a hostile, unregulated terrorist army on Israel’s northern border.

But Hezbollah has changed perceptions, too. Six years after Secretary-General Annan certified Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon, the council is asking him to delineate the borders again, directly addressing Hezbollah’s pretext for remaining armed in violation of U.N. resolution 1559.

As the council prepared to confer legitimacy on the erroneous but now widely accepted notion that Shebaa Farms is a “disputed” territory, Hezbollah and its Lebanese, Syrian, and Iranian allies yesterday did what they do best when gifts are handed to them: disdainfully rejected it.

The rejection is crucial because, as the French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, told reporters on Saturday, the parties will have to “agree in principle” to the French-American proposal before it can be adopted as a resolution.

Without such an agreement, not only this proposal will be meaningless. The next resolution — which is expected to set the conditions for a lasting ceasefire, enforced by a multinational force — will never happen without at least a tacit Hezbollah agreement. No French or other European troops will dare go into southern Lebanon with guns blazing.

But Hezbollah was created by Iran a quarter-century ago to counterbalance Israel’s military hegemony. Though many now consider it a genuine domestic Lebanese phenomenon, the Shiite group never dropped its original military goals.

Even the best-case scenario, in which Hezbollah is incorporated into the Lebanese army, leaves a vital question: Will the fun-loving Lebanese influence the Hezbollah-dominated army, or will Hezbollah enforce its “perpetual war with Israel” agenda on Lebanon?

Talking about Hezbollah’s fight against “occupation” is meaningless. The minute Mr. Annan certified Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in June 2000, Syria and Hezbollah announced that Shebaa remained “occupied” Lebanese land. No one can guarantee that if Israel leaves Shebaa now, Hezbollah won’t come up with another piece of land in need of “liberation.”

Israel holds the highest plateau of Shebaa mostly for strategic reasons. Some Israelis, including Prime Minister Sharon’s highly respected security adviser, Giora Eiland, now speak of giving up Shebaa as part of comprehensive arrangements guaranteeing peace along Israel’s northern border. But those arrangements will have to be nearly ironclad before the high ground is handed over.

“We want this to be a transformational solution that moves the region beyond the problem that has existed for so many years,” the American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said Saturday about the text he circulated to council members.

It remains to be seen, however, whether a reiteration of the need to disarm Hezbollah, a council demand that has been ignored by all for three years, will now lead to its demise as an armed force. Israeli leaders trust for now that what they increasingly call “the international community” will deliver the required security that their army was held back from obtaining.

For the time being, Hezbollah is the envy of the region’s peoples, rekindling the dream of the two-step solution that President Ahmadinejad of Iran reiterated last week: cease-fire first, eliminating the Zionist entity next.

Mr. Annan neglected to denounce that statement last week, and his spokesmen instead itemized the suffering on both sides of the border, in Lebanon and in Gaza.

The United Nations today will publish the findings of its investigation into the death of 28 Lebanese in an aerial raid directed at missile launchers, already described as the “Qana massacre” by a U.N. spokesman, Ahmad Fawzi. Will the indiscriminate shelling that killed at least 15 Israelis yesterday ever be investigated?

The current U.N. leadership is clueless at best and biased at worst. America and a handful of U.N. officials not consulted by Mr. Annan in recent weeks should keep an eye on it.

As for Shebaa, Mr. Annan determined in 2000 that it belongs to Syria. More recently, he told the council that any handover to Lebanon from Syria should be done only by signed agreement. Damascus will never sign because its leaders do not recognize Lebanon as an independent state. The United Nations should therefore tell the council it has no reason to reopen the case.