The world's diplomats have not covered themselves in glory this summer.

A month into what is now being called the Sixth Arab-Israeli war, with more than 1,000 Lebanese dead and nearly 100 Israelis killed, officials are still haggling over the wording of a resolution, which even when passed may not halt the violence.

There have been no dramatic bouts of shuttle diplomacy, few emergency sessions and a distinct lack of urgency to the proceedings. Most of the world’s leaders are on holiday.

A week ago anger was directed at America and Britain for their failure to sign up for an "immediate ceasefire". When the wording of a resolution demanding a "full cessation of hostilities" was finally agreed, it was the turn of the Arabs to object to the text on the ground that it was too sympathetic to Israel.

While nothing is predictable at a time of war, there does now seem to be a broad consensus among the key players in the international community that should enable a resolution to be passed in the coming days.

The existing text, drafted by America and France, will probably be amended to take into consideration Lebanon’s demands that it include a paragraph calling for Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

Since Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, said today that Israel wanted to leave as soon as possible, it should not be too difficult to reflect this in diplomatic language.

Officials expect the Security Council to listen to the statements of the Arab League delegation due in New York today. A few minor amendments will then be made and then the resolution voted on.

France, which represents the interests of Lebanon, and other sympathetic players, like Russia, have warned the Arabs not to drag the process out or try to unpick the whole resolution. That could set the process back by weeks and cost even more lives.

But even if the UN Security Council passes this resolution, the fighting is unlikely to be really over until it is clear what comes next. That will be set out in a second resolution.

Lebanon’s sudden mobilisation of 15,000 soldiers yesterday certainly improves the climate. The Lebanese Army may be weak and certainly no match for Hezbollah, but by deploying in the south and along the Israeli border it will at least be a demonstration of the authority of the central government in Beirut and the fulfilling of earlier UN Security Council resolutions. The Lebanese Army could deploy alongside a strengthened monitoring from Unifil, the UN’s small but ineffective peacekeeping unit.

There are fears that Hezbollah’s patrons, Syria and Iran, would like this joint Lebanese-UN group to be primarily responsible for security in the south.
But Israel and the international community want a far more robust force of some 15,000 troops, probably led by France, which would deploy across southern Lebanon with the aim of preventing Hezbollah rebuilding its military infrastructure.

It will take weeks for this second force to assemble, and before it deploys some very detailed negotiations must be finalised to establish its authority under a second UN resolution.

France was part of a similar multi-national operation after the last Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It withdrew its forces after a suicide bomber killed 56 French paratroopers in 1983. It does not want the new force to become caught in the middle of a another flare-up in violence.

All sides - with the possible exception of Hezbollah and Iran - agree that they do not want southern Lebanon returning to the situation that existed before the current fighting.

That means prisoners on both sides must be freed, lingering border disputes, like the argument over the Shebaa Farms region, must be resolved, and a buffer must be built to separate Israel from Hezbollah, particularly its deadly arsenal of long-range rockets.

But the task will be difficult. The Israeli military will always be tempted to attack Hezbollah and stop it regaining strength. Iran and Syria will want to continue to use Hezbollah to provoke Israel.

While the Arab-Israeli conflict is unresolved, Lebanon will remain unstable. Unfortunately for its long-suffering people it will continue to be vulnerable to future battles between Israel and its militant foes.

Times Recommends

• The Japanese Prime Minister is doomed: or is he?
• Brighton company 'involved in cyber attack'
• The art of survival: it's all in the mind