be adopted for the practical purposes of confirming Israeli withdrawal. While it was agreed that this would not be a formal border demarcation, the aim was to identify a line on the ground on the available cartographic and other documentary evidence. On June 7, 2000 the completed map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts. Notwithstanding their reservations about the line, the Governments of Israel and Lebanon confirmed that identifying this line was solely the responsibility of the UN and that they would respect the line as identified. The next day, UNIFIL started the verification work whether the Israeli withdrawal had been accomplished behind the line. On June 16, 2000 the UN-Secretary-General reported to the UN-SC that Israel had withdrawn in conformity with the line identified by the UN. 11 However, the issue is still pending, as reflected by UN-SC resolution 1701(2006). The technical fence established by Israel is constantly a bit on the move, which does not at all facilitate the work of UNIFIL. Interpretation of the UNIFIL mandate The ultimate power of interpretation lies with the UN-Security Council which governs the terms of operation of the mandate. The rules of engagement serve as reference. Furthermore, the troop contributing states do their interpretation on pertinent issues. When questions arise inside the UNIFIL offices in Lebanon, the political officers will turn to the Legal Office of the UN-Secretariat in New York and require advice. Such was the case, for instance, with regard to the term“hostile activity” as coined in UN-SC resolution 1701(2006). Paragraph 12 states that the UN-SC“(...) authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind,(…)”. Controversy arose whether“hostile acts” or also“hostile intent” were meant. Apparently, the mandate could have become tighter if the debate had continued for much longer. Israel wanted a list of titles and categories defining all sorts of hostile acts, Lebanon had a different, but not less detailed approach. A pragmatic view prevailed, all parties concerned decided to do the interpretation on a case by case approach. 12 The final determination of a“hostile act” remains with UNIFIL. The tripartite meetings of UNIFIL-Israel-LAF ease the tension, but mutual confidence remains low. It should be stressed, that Hizbullah is not a party to the UN-SC resolution 1701(2006), but the LAF does pass on information that UNIFIL wishes to reach Hizbullah. On certain occasions, common sense of the people can definitely contribute to the diffusion of tension. In August 2009, several cows moved from the other side of the Israeli technical fence into UNIFIL controlled area close to Kfar Chouba in Lebanon. It may be assumed that the cows did not open the gates by themselves, but received a helping hand from Israeli farmers. The destination of the cows was a water-hole used by Lebanese shepherds for their sheep. Angered by that intrusion the Lebanese were looking for an adequate reply. They dispatched 11 S/2000/590 12 Background conversation with members of UNIFIL in Tyr in mid-october 2009 8