A unique opportunity to improve security in the North: UNIFIL has directly or indirectly hurt Israel's defense and security interests in the area - by Prof. Eugene Kontorovich

Cancelling or cutting back the mandate will be helpful to Israel's strategic interests in the region and will illustrate the defense ethos that Israel defends itself, by itself.

Prof. Eugene Kontorovich..
Israel Hayom..
17 August '20..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/unifil-an-opportunity-for-change/

On Oct. 7, 2000, an IDF patrol vehicle was attacked by a powerful bomb near Mount Dov. Hezbollah operatives crossed the border fence and abducted soldiers Adi Avitan, Omar Souad, and Benny Avraham. The attack was carried out with the help of a distraction from protesters on the border near Moshav Zerit, and mortar fire on IDF positions. An investigation of the incident discovered that surprisingly, Indian UNIFIL soldiers who were on duty at nearby outposts had filmed the events in real time and even opted not to report it to the IDF. The footage was discovered eight months after the incident. In addition, the UN troops also filmed the transfer of the kidnapped IDF soldiers some 16 hours later, and again, did not hand the footage over to Israel in time for it to take action.

There are other instances in which the UN temporary peacekeeping force – UNIFIL – has directly or indirectly hurt Israel's defense and security interests in the area and limited the IDF's ability to respond. The main claim voiced in the defense establishment at the time was that the forces had no real power and were too small to carry out their mandate of restoring peace and security and helping restore control to the South Lebanese Army.

But in 2006, after the Second Lebanon War was over, that idea crashed on the rocks of reality. The UN Security Council resolved to increase UNIFIL forces nearly fivefold, to 10,900 personnel, and expanded both its enforcement mandate and budget. Nevertheless, the increased forces failed in both motivation and efficacy when it came to taking action against violations on the Lebanese side of the "Blue Line." Since then, Hezbollah has dug attack tunnels under the border into Israel under the very noses of the UN troops, with the hope of carrying out a mega-terror attack against communities in northern Israel.

In biased reports to the UN Security Council and by its very presence in the region, UNIFIL "whitewashes" violations by Hezbollah and the Lebanese army, allowing them to act freely. If another war in the north takes place, UNIFIL's presence will likely hamper the IDF's ability to maneuver in south Lebanon, and serve as a de facto human shield for Hezbollah.

What are the chances that the Beirut explosion was not intended for Israel? - by Alex Traiman

While Israel and the rest of the international community have been offering humanitarian aid to Lebanon in the wake of one of the largest explosions since the Chernobyl nuclear reactor blew in 1986, the greatest aid to the people of Lebanon would be the complete disarmament and expulsion of Hezbollah.

Alex Traiman..
JNS.org..
09 August '20..

Many of Israel’s modern military accomplishments have defied all odds and logic. Surprise victories in Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, Six-Day War in 1967 and Yom Kippur War in 1973 will forever stand among Israel’s most miraculous and unlikely historical achievements.

This past week, while smoke and debris covers Beirut, Israel may have averted a disaster.

When a massive stockpile of weapons-grade ammonium nitrate exploded in the Beirut port on Aug. 4, it was without a doubt a tragedy of horrific proportions. At least 150 innocent civilians were killed and thousands more wounded. The damage to the city of Beirut, and to Lebanon’s main seaport, will take years to repair.

Yet for Israel, there is one major consolation: The stockpile of ammonium nitrate and the collateral damage it caused may well have been earmarked for Israel.

(Continue to Full Column)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

Any more harebrained schemes involving “U.N. peacekeepers"? - by Ken Cohen

...bear in mind that the once-promising U.N. of yesteryear has become the corrupt and inept U.N. of today—and has betrayed Israel time after time. Harebrained schemes involving “U.N. peacekeepers in the Jordan Valley” or, even more outlandish, “the internationalization of Jerusalem under U.N. auspices” are guaranteed to be disastrous for Israel and for any hope of a peaceful Middle East.

Ken Cohen..
JNS.org..
10 September '19..

Last week, Israel came within hours of a full-scale war on its border with Lebanon. This horrific situation was made possible through the malignant incompetence of the United Nations.

On Sept. 1, Hezbollah launched anti-tank missiles from Lebanon at an Israeli military vehicle near the border, damaging it slightly. Fortunately, no Israeli soldiers were killed or wounded. Had there been significant casualties, Israel would have had to respond much more aggressively than it did, which would have triggered a full-scale conflict.

And how is it that Hezbollah was able to maintain its missile arsenal in southern Lebanon? The answer is the utter failure of the United Nations to disarm the terrorist organization.

Despite its primary purpose of preventing war, the United Nations has consistently been its enabler in the Middle East. This most recent betrayal of the U.N.’s peace-keeping mission is just the latest in a seven-decade string of U.N. failures to maintain peace in the Middle East and globally.

(Continue to Full Column)

Ken Cohen is co-editor of the Hotline published by Facts and Logic About the Middle East (FLAME), which offers educational messages to correct lies and misperceptions about Israel and its relationship to the United States.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 

Israel has learned this lesson many times before, but one still has to wonder what State Dept. officials are thinking - by Evelyn Gordon

...And then they wonder why Israelis don’t think the international guarantees they’re being offered are a good substitute for the defensible borders they would lose.

Evelyn Gordon..
Analysis from Israel..
04 March '18..
Link: http://evelyncgordon.com/state-department-backs-lebanese-land-grab-against-israel/

State Department officials have spent a lot of time in Lebanon recently. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the country two weeks ago, and Acting Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield made an appearance last week. Among other issues, they are trying to mediate two Lebanese-Israeli disputes. The problem is that only one of these is a quasi-legitimate conflict; the other is a patently illegitimate Lebanese land grab. By treating that claim as legitimate, the State Department is not only encouraging aggression but proving, once again, that international guarantees to Israel are worthless.

The quasi-legitimate dispute relates to where the maritime border between Israel and Lebanon runs. As I noted back in 2011, Beirut is currently claiming maritime territory that it didn’t consider Lebanese as recently as 2007, when it signed (but ultimately didn’t ratify) a deal demarcating its maritime border with Cyprus. That makes the State Department’s proposal to award Lebanon 75 percent of this territory outrageous. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Israel and Lebanon have no agreed maritime border, and international law doesn’t provide an unequivocal answer as to where it should run. So State’s mediation is justifiable, even if its proposal isn’t.

The second dispute, however, is over Lebanon’s claim that Israel’s planned new border wall encroaches on Lebanese territory in 13 places. And on this, there should be no question whatsoever, because a recognized international border, known as the Blue Line, already exists and the UN has twice affirmed that Israel isn’t violating it.

The first time the UN affirmed realities on the ground was after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. Then, the UN Security Council unanimously confirmed that all the areas Beirut now claims were, in fact, on Israel’s side of the border. The second was earlier this month when the UN Interim Force in Lebanon reaffirmed that all the new construction is on Israel’s side of the border.

The latter, incidentally, is particularly noteworthy because UNIFIL usually sides with Beirut in any Lebanese-Israeli dispute, for the simple reason that its peacekeepers are located on Lebanese soil and therefore vulnerable to reprisals if it ruffles Lebanese feathers. Indeed, as reported by the Jerusalem Post just last week, members of UNIFIL’s French contingent recently told a French paper that they routinely refrain from doing the job they’re officially there to do—ensuring that Hezbollah conducts no military activity in southern Lebanon, as mandated by Security Council Resolution 1701 of 2006—for fear of clashes with the Lebanese Army.

Given the existence of both a recognized international border and unequivocal UN confirmation that Israel hasn’t violated it, the only proper response to Beirut’s protest over a new fence would be to politely tell it that it has no case whatsoever. The territory in question is unarguably Israel’s, and Israel is free to build whatever it pleases there. Instead, the State Department has treated Lebanon’s claim as legitimate. Tillerson demanded that Israel halt construction until it reaches an agreement with Lebanon on the border, while Satterfield proposed land swaps to satisfy Lebanon’s claims. In other words, State is asking Israel to cede land which the Security Council unanimously recognized as sovereign Israeli territory just because a thuggish neighbor covets it and has threatened war if its demands aren’t satisfied.

Needless to say, this is an excellent way to encourage aggression. If Lebanon can get Washington to pressure Israel to cede internationally recognized Israeli territory merely by claiming land to which it lacks any vestige of right and then threatening war if its demands aren’t met, why wouldn’t Lebanon—or any other country interested in grabbing Israeli land—keep repeating this tactic?

And would it make peace with Israel?

Michael J. Totten..
The Tower Magazine..
#4 July '13


Lebanon has a serious problem with Israel.

The country has technically been at war with its southern neighbor since the Jewish state declared independence in 1948. Israeli citizens are banned. Even foreigners are banned if they have Israeli stamps in their passports. Lebanese citizens aren’t allowed to have any communication of any kind with Israelis anywhere in the world. If citizens of the two countries meet, say, on a beach in Cyprus or in a bar in New York, the Lebanese risks prison just for saying hello. Israel doesn’t even exist on Lebanese maps.

At the same time, with the possible exception of Morocco, Lebanon is in important ways the least anti-Israel country in the Arab world. Indeed, decades ago many Israelis assumed it would be among the first Arab countries to sign a peace treaty with the Jewish state. It made sense at the time. With its enormous one-third Christian minority (it used to have an outright Christian majority), it’s the least Muslim and most religiously diverse of all the Arab countries. And since a huge number of its Christians insist they aren’t even Arabs, Lebanon might be the least Arab of the Arabic-speaking countries. Its capital, Beirut, has more in common with Tel Aviv than with any Arab city, including those in Lebanon itself. Put simply, Lebanon is just about the only Arab country where Israel can find natural allies.

Decades ago, many Israelis believed Lebanon would be the first Arab country to make peace.

Yet today it is widely assumed that Lebanon will be the last Arab country to make peace with Israel.

To understand this paradox, you have to try to understand Lebanon. To say Lebanon is a nation of contradictions is a cliché, but it’s a cliché because it is true. It is simultaneously Western and Eastern, Christian and Muslim, modern and feudal, democratic and illiberal, secular and sectarian, cosmopolitan and parochial, progressive and reactionary, tolerant and aggressively hateful. This is because there is more than one Lebanon.

(Continue)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.

.

Meet Moustafa Geha - Lebanese Reformer Seeks Safe Haven

“...To have a real Spring in the Middle East we must support all groups [and] their rights,” he states. Thus, he is supportive of Israel. “The Jewish people have the right to have a good life without terror and wars, and I believe that if we make good peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon we can have an amazing region,” he contends.

Arnold Ahlert..
frontpagemag.com..
27 September '12..

The outspoken and courageous son of an equally outspoken and courageous father is making waves of his own. Moustafa Geha is a Lebanese political activist and journalist who has openly opposed the meddling of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah in his country’s affairs. As a result, an attempt was made to assassinate him on April 14th. Luckily, he survived. His father wasn’t as lucky. The elder Geha’s outspoken opposition to Syrian and Iranian intervention in Lebanon, as well his criticism of violent Islamists during the 1970s and 1980s, precipitated his assassination by pro-Syrian terrorists in 1992.

“I cannot forget my father’s pictures when he was assassinated by Hezbollah in 1992 and I cannot forget the sound of shooting at me in April,” Geha told FrontPage. “I want to have peace [for me] and my family too, because we have a long, bad history with killing and oppression. I want to have the right to write and publish my ideas and to be safe at the same time. For this I left Lebanon and I don’t want to come back, because I know they will kill me,” he added. Geha currently seeking political asylum in Sweden. “It’s a good country for human rights,” he notes.

The same can hardly be said for Lebanon, where the murderous machinations of Hezbollah–backed by Syria and Iran–continue to be perpetrated with impunity. In an article for Arutz Sheva’s op-ed page, Geha illuminates that history, even as he remains rightly incredulous that the European Union refuses to categorize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Hezbollah “is now running world public opinion,” he writes.

Geha is on the mark. As recently as July, Cypriot Foreign Minister Gujarat Cossack-Marcolis, who presently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, contended that “there is no consensus on the [terror] issue,” because Hezbollah “also has an active political arm.” She added that the matter might be reconsidered if ”tangible evidence” reveals otherwise.

Geha offers this clueless EU bureaucrat and other like-minded Europeans a brief history of such “tangible evidence,” beginning in 1983, when Hezbollah carried out three operations. They bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, killing 63 Americans, and a camp of French soldiers in the Bekaa Valley, killing 58 Frenchmen. Furthermore, they were responsible for the now infamous bombing of the U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut, where 241 American soldiers lost their lives. Geha’s historically inspired indictment continues, as he lists several assassinations carried out by Hezbollah over the course of decades, including the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, as well as their attack against Israel in 2006 that precipitated an all-out war. Even now, Hezbollah remains “a huge threat to Lebanese society through the group’s control of the security network, where false accusations and charges can be levied against those who oppose the fabrication of files putting them in prisons or worse,” writes Geha.

Geha went into the issue even deeper for FrontPage. After noting that neither he nor his father were followers of Islam, he explains why. “I do not believe Islam can be characterized as a religion,” he contends. “Islam is concerned only about spreading Islam. It is not concerned about the welfare of the Muslim. In the Hadith, unbelievers have three choices: accept Islam, [go to] war with Muslims, or pay a tax and live a humiliating inferior status. Living as equals in peaceful coexistence is not a choice!” He further notes the long line of civilizations destroyed by Islam on the Arabian Peninsula, and in Africa and Asia. “How many Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahaists and others were killed by Muslims only because they are not Muslims?” he asks. “And don’t believe those who say Islam is religion of peace,” he adds.

AWOL; remembering Amnesty International's whitewashing of Hezbollah’s war crimes

Robert Werdine..
The Times of Israel..
14 July '12..

Following the ceasing of hostilities in the 2006 Lebanon War fought between Israel and Hezbollah, Amnesty International issued a report excoriating Israel for its alleged violations of the rules of war, adding that they used disproportionate force, and showed reckless disregard for the lives of civilians.

To illustrate their point and underscore their charge, AI pointed to the destruction wrought on the south Lebanese town of Bint J’Bail,

“When Amnesty International visited the town of Bint J’Bail in the far south of the country, the centre of the city, where there had been a market and busy commercial streets leading from it, was devastated. Every building on the streets was destroyed, extensively damaged or beyond repair. The streets were strewn with rubble and in that rubble was clear evidence of the cause of the damage unexploded munitions, shrapnel and craters…The Israeli army seemed to have used every type of munition in its arsenal”…“Israeli artillery bombardments in Bint J’beil are considered indiscriminate.”

By reading the AI report, you would think the IDF was attacking a defenseless Disneyland at midsummer. But the truth, unmentioned by AI, was that Bint J’Bail was the chief site of Hezbollah rocket launching and artillery, and the site of one of the bitterest exchanges of the war.

Totten - Israel Builds a Wall in the North

Michael J. Totten..
Commentary/Contentions..
02 May '12..

Israel just began construction of a high cement wall on its northern border between the Israeli town of Metulla and the Lebanese town of Kfar Kila. The wall will only be a kilometer long, so it’s clearly not being placed there to prevent anyone from crossing the border per se. It’s being placed there to prevent anyone from crossing the border—or shooting across the border—at that specific location.

In 2005, I drove down there from Beirut with a Lebanese woman who grew up in the area. I was thunderstruck when we arrived at Kfar Kila. Israeli houses were mere feet from the border fence. Some of those homes are so close to it that a person could walk right up to an Israeli backyard and, while remaining inside Lebanese territory, throw a hand grenade through somebody’s window. And remember, this is the part of Lebanon that’s controlled by Hezbollah.

If you’re an American, how would you feel if the Taliban set up shop a few feet from your yard? Comfy?

Stern - Shabbat Shalom...

Paula R. Stern..
A Soldier's Mother..
13 January '12..

I've got no time to write and truthfully, with something burning in my stomach, if I wrote, it wouldn't be good so I'll let it sit a while and figure if words will do justice to the injustice of others, of what a place of worship should be but all too often is not.

For now, I'll tell you that the soup is cooking, the sweet challah dough is rising. I have the heat on so the house is warm. It's gray and raining outside and I love it. So cold, so winter, so rare. It's family this weekend, quiet. Elie and Lauren cut tons of vegetables for the soup and left me instructions what to do with it this morning.

I've made three quiches (broccoli, mushroom, and corn) and soon a non-meat lasagna will go in. Today is Aliza's 12th birthday on the English calendar so I'm going to make her a case as well. The real celebration will take place in a few weeks, on her Hebrew birthday (or near it anyway).

What peace you find on a day like today comes from within the home. Yesterday and this morning, rockets were again fired at Israel; I continue to receive messages of hate. One came yesterday which I put through, insisting the Ahmadinejad didn't say he wanted to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. It was a play on words - instead of using the name "Israel" - he called us the "occupiers of Jerusalem" - well, duh - takes a brain and a map to figure out who he is talking about.

And then last night on Twitter a former Lebanese Prime Minister told his 79,000 followers that he had, apparently, accidentally greeted an Israeli and he was certainly sorry. If he had know, he never would have spoken to him.

How silly, how immature. How incredibly filled with hatred. How clear it is that the Arabs do not want peace. They can't even stomach speaking to an Israeli by accident. "Israel is our enemy" - I have not heard such truth from an Arab leader in a long time. Yes, Israel is your enemy. It isn't a great message to hear for those who want peace. It is a sad message, a dismal one.

Media on the Middle East, January 27, 2011

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
28 January '11
Posted before Shabbat

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/01/media-on-middle-east-january-27-2011.html

It seems to have become fashionable for some mainstream media outlets to become supporters of revolutionary Islamist movements recently. The Palestine papers case is an example but not the only one.

The pro-Hizballah Lebanon correspondent of the New York Times first told us that Hizballah wasn’t a threat to take over the government, then had to report on its taking over the government.

What’s his new line? That the new government is just fine. After all, he explains, the new prime minister wants to have good relations with the United States. Etc. No problem here. Just as there were no problems when Iran had an Islamist revolution, the Taliban took over Afghanistan, and Hamas seized the Gaza Strip.

I just love the headline: “Next Premier of Lebanon Tries to Set His Own Course.” So all those who believe the newspaper will not think that he’s just a puppet of Iran, Syria, and Hizballah. Unfortunately, he is.

Remember when we were told that sending a U.S. ambassador to Syria was not a reward but just a way to communicate better? Communicate what?

The new ambassador explains that this move is: “Proof that we are committed to try and solve the problems between our governments." In his talks with the Syrian president, they discussed, "Some areas in which we hope to identify mutual interests and ways of addressing them that serve the interests of both of our countries."

In other words, though he might well have been tougher in private (I doubt it but it is possible) the signal being sent is: Do whatever you want because we are continuing the soft line toward Syria.

The fact that this happened in the same week that Syria for all practical purposes took control of Lebanon is rather pointed, isn’t it?

The Middle East in May 2010: An Assessment

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
22 May '10

Why am I writing so much about U.S. policy lately and less about developments within the region itself lately? Because in a real sense not that much is happening right now in the region. A colleague remarked to me today that the world's political weather is set by the U.S. president. This seems very true right now.

Recently, there was a bit of a war scare regarding the Israel-Lebanon border. Yet there was never any chance of a shooting conflict. Syria and Hizballah don't want one at present. They are too busy taking over Lebanon and are holding their fire for the possibility in future of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

There's also a lot of noise about Israel-Palestinian Authority indirect negotiations. But nothing is happening or going to happen there either. The closer you get to the two sides--and the further from the discussion in the Western media and capitals--the more obvious is that reality.

Regrading Israeli politics, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition is solid. The Kadima-led opposition is very quiet and not making any strong points. Netanyahu's government is going to continue for quite a while.

Nor have there been any big changes in the internal stability of Arabic-speaking countries, though we are all waiting for the coming transition in Egypt. Turkey's regime continues to march it in the direction of greater Islamism, though the outside world seems to take little notice. Lebanon's "progress" in the direction of Syria-Iran control is clearer. And it is now clear that the Iranian regime has defeated the opposition for the forseeable future, which probably means a bundle of years.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.