In recent days, the US has introduced several changes to the draft based on feedback from the parties. Some changes benefit Israel, more strongly anchoring the commitment to disarm Hamas and demilitarize Gaza. Others, however, do not align with Israel's interests.

One of the most problematic changes is the removal of the sanction for removing international aid organizations that cooperate with terror. The original text of the resolution explicitly stated that "any organization found to have engaged in the misuse of such aid shall be deemed ineligible to provide ongoing or future assistance."

These words are missing from the new draft. In their place, it merely states the need "to ensure that such aid is used solely for peaceful purposes and is not diverted to armed groups." Critically, the sanction of suspending an organization whose employees were found aiding terror – as happened with UNRWA – has been eliminated.

On a more positive note, the revised text indicates that the IDF's withdrawal will be conditioned on full demilitarization and coordination with the US and Arab states. Per the new draft, the IDF's phased withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will only happen after agreed-upon standards for demilitarization and security are met. The text states the IDF will withdraw "in accordance with benchmarks and timetables to be determined jointly with the security forces, the guarantor states, and the United States," and that a limited Israeli security presence will remain to ensure terror does not return.

A new clause in the resolution mandates the international transition body (BoP) to submit a written report every six months to the Security Council detailing the progress of implementing Gaza's demilitarization on the ground. This step is intended to enhance transparency and oversight of the mechanism's work. Notably, a similar mechanism was supposed to operate for years in southern Lebanon through UNIFIL, but it failed to do its job.

Clause 7 of the draft resolution's new text includes direct coordination between the IDF, the Stabilization Force (ISF), Arab states, and the US. It stresses the international force's responsibility to prevent the restoration of terror infrastructure and ensure the Strip is demilitarized.

The post US pivots on Gaza's 'day after' plan; UNRWA avoids sanctions appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Gideon Sa'ar said, "The force was intended to be temporary from the outset and has failed in its fundamental task – to prevent Hezbollah's entrenchment south of the Litani River."

UNIFIL was established to enforce UN resolutions related to Lebanon, including preventing Hezbollah's rearmament after the 2006 war, but has not succeeded in this objective. Israel Hayom reported in June that both the US and Israel had an initial agreement to end UNIFIL's operations, and this position has now been formalized with clear explanations as to why this should be done.

The request comes ahead of UN discussions scheduled for late August to renew UNIFIL's mandate and follows extensive deliberations within Israel's political and security establishment. Sa'ar is expected to meet Rubio, who also serves as the US national security advisor, during a visit to Washington next week.

In his letter, Sa'ar emphasized that Israel seeks an immediate end to UNIFIL's mandate. As an alternative, he suggested a temporary extension of six months to one year to allow for an proper disbanding, enabling the Lebanese Armed Forces to redeploy in southern Lebanon and UNIFIL to evacuate its positions in an orderly way. During this interim period, UNIFIL's activities would focus on specific tasks, such as clearing explosives and mines, training the Lebanese army, and organizing the withdrawal of its forces.

Sa'ar further noted that the recent war and Hezbollah's significant weakening present a historic opportunity to achieve two goals: disarming Hezbollah and supporting the Lebanese army in asserting full sovereignty over its territory.

He criticized UNIFIL's 47-year presence, highlighting that its name, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, indicates its temporary nature. Sa'ar said, "It failed in its fundamental task – to prevent Hezbollah's entrenchment south of the Litani River – as proven by the recent war." He also accused UNIFIL of consistently presenting a misleading picture in its reports to the UN Security Council.

The post Israel takes official step to end UN mission in Southern Lebanon appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Video: Incident in Bedias village highlights growing tensions as US and Israel consider ending UN peacekeeping mission

On Sunday, Israel Hayom revealed that the United States and Israel are moving to end UNIFIL's mission in south Lebanon. Israel has joined the US position that the UN force – stationed in the region – should conclude its 47-year presence (UNIFIL, stands for United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was formed in the 1970s). Formed after Operation Litani in 1978, the international contingent has consistently failed to curb the armament of terrorist organizations in the area.

Since the ceasefire with Israel has commenced in December, multiple incidents have unfolded in Shiite villages in south Lebanon – Hezbollah supporters have targeted UNIFIL patrols, even affixing the group's flags to UN vehicles. In certain instances, it was noted that the patrols "operate without an escort from the Lebanese Armed Forces."

Speaking to Sky News, UN Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operation Jean-Pierre Lacroix expressed support for deploying the Lebanese Armed Forces in south Lebanon. He argued that the presence of Israeli forces "impedes the Lebanese army's deployment and the fulfillment of the international community's objectives." He further clarified – "No talks have occurred about cutting international funding for UNIFIL" – and stressed – "Funding decisions rest with the UN Security Council. Our operational structure in south Lebanon remains unchanged. Since 2006, 48 nations have backed our mission in Lebanon – and our presence fosters 'a sense of hope' in the region."

The post Hezbollah man gets physical with UN peacekeeper; chaos ensues appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

For nearly two decades, United Nations peacekeepers have watched helplessly as Hezbollah continues rearming along Israel's border since their last war. With Israel and Hezbollah now agreeing to a ceasefire after a year of fighting, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) once again finds itself central to peacekeeping efforts, yet remains unable to enforce a buffer zone between the parties, Wall Street Journal analysts say.

According to Lebanese officials, the deal includes a 60-day implementation period allowing Israeli forces to withdraw while the Lebanese military secures the border area and prevents Hezbollah from re-establishing an armed presence. An international committee, including UN peacekeepers, would monitor compliance.

But neither Lebanese forces nor UN troops could prevent Hezbollah from establishing combat positions in southern Lebanon and launching rockets across the border, as Israel responded with military overflights and occasional live fire. UN peacekeepers largely remained in their bases after coming under fire from both sides.

Israel maintains it must retain the freedom to strike at Hezbollah even post-ceasefire if it perceives the terrorist group as a threat. An Israeli official emphasized: "We're not talking about the dissolution of UNIFIL but also won't place the future security of northern Israel in UNIFIL's hands. We're not going back to Oct 6."

UNIFIL's challenging mandate dates to 1978, when Israel entered Lebanon after a Palestinian attack on a bus in central Israel killed 38 civilians, including 13 children. UNIFIL was tasked with monitoring Israeli military withdrawal and supporting Lebanese government security efforts in the volatile south.

By 1982, Israel was again engaged in Lebanon. Following the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, UNIFIL's responsibilities expanded to include monitoring Hezbollah's activities in southern Lebanon and supporting Lebanese military efforts under UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

UNIFIL reports violations to both the Lebanese army and Israel, which are responsible for addressing these issues, and to the UN secretary-general, who presents findings to the Security Council. However, Lebanon's army lacks sufficient funding and capabilities compared to Hezbollah, and the resolution provides limited mechanisms for enforcement.

Resolution 1701 faced immediate violations, and UNIFIL's mission grew increasingly complex. Despite conducting up to 10,000 monthly patrols, peacekeepers frequently reported restrictions on their movement and access to suspicious locations. The force cannot enter private property or detain civilians without Lebanese authorization.

Over the years, peacekeepers have faced mounting hostility and intimidation by Hezbollah and people in the south, who occasionally accuse them of spying for Israel and attack them. In 2010, UNIFIL reported an incident where Lebanese civilians attacked their 36-hour exercise, throwing stones, assaulting patrol leaders, damaging vehicles, and seizing weapons and ammunition.

In 2010, UNIFIL reported an explosion at a house in a village but said it couldn't determine the cause "as possible evidence was tampered with or removed before the UNIFIL investigation team was allowed access to the incident site." The Lebanese army was only allowed to enter after a standoff with villagers.

UNIFIL has achieved some success in defusing conflicts and has hosted meetings between the Lebanese army and Israel to prevent exchanges of fire. However, Hezbollah amassed so many arms near the border that the situation became unsustainable for Israel, said Richard Gowan, UN director at International Crisis Group. "It's been an open secret for quite a long time that you had Hezbollah operating in quite close proximity to UNIFIL," Gowan said.

The peacekeepers' last report to the UN before the Oct 7 attacks – dated July 2023 – highlights their ongoing challenges. They documented rocket fire, unauthorized weapons, Israeli airspace violations, tunnel construction, and a Hezbollah drill with rocket launchers and quadcopters, along with frequent harassment. A UN patrol was stopped in April by masked people and assaulted. The mission couldn't access suspicious border buildings belonging to an environmental group that the US and Israel accuse of being a Hezbollah front. Israeli tanks aimed guns at them several times, and lasers were pointed at them from both sides.

UNIFIL Spokesman Andrea Tenenti explained: "We go back to the limitation of the mission's mandate, what the mission can do and what we cannot do. But it's up to the Security Council to decide how to move forward. It's not up to the mission to take further steps that are not within the mission's mandate."

UNIFIL's observations have led to some action. In 2006, it reported finding weapons about weekly, including 17 Katyusha rocket launchers and a weapons cache. The Lebanese Armed Forces confiscated or destroyed these weapons after being notified.

Between December 2018 and April 2019, after Israeli notification, peacekeepers confirmed five tunnels, three crossing from Lebanon into Israel. They provided coordinates to Lebanese forces and urged them for months to fulfill Resolution 1701 commitments.

Former Israeli military liaison to UNIFIL Jonathan Conricus, now a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said UNIFIL told Israel it couldn't inspect tunnel locations without Lebanese military permission due to private property rights. When nothing happened after a month, Israeli forces pumped cement into one tunnel until it flooded a building and street on the Lebanese side.

From 2007 through 2022, the UN documented 22,355 Israeli airspace violations over Lebanon, according to the Earshot agency. Israeli officials say these flights are necessary for intelligence gathering due to UNIFIL's ineffective mandate fulfillment and inadequate reporting of Hezbollah's rearmament.

Former Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who helped negotiate the 2006 resolution, reflected on UNIFIL's difficult position by referencing classical Persian poetry: "You throw a man in the water, then blame him for being wet."

The post Will UNIFIL be able to enforce the ceasefire buffer zone? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

1

Have the events of October 7 really forced us to re-examine our perception of reality? Talk of an "arrangement" in Lebanon before decisive victory over our enemy echoes the outdated Oslo mindset that led us here in the first place. This mindset assumes that Arabs approach signed agreements with the same commitment as the West in general and Israel in particular. The Oslo Accords rested on the belief that others would fight on our behalf – the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria and Gaza, UNIFIL in southern Lebanon, Egypt controlling arms smuggling through the Philadelphi Corridor, and the Americans would guard us from Iran's nuclear ambitions and prevent them from ever dropping an atomic bomb on us. Now, there is talk of the Lebanese Army cleaning out Hezbollah from southern Lebanon – the same old conceptions are apparently still in place.

2

In Western culture, the concept of peace – derived from the biblical prophets – implies recognizing the existence of the other. For many in the Arab world, however, an agreement – especially with non-Muslims – is no more than a temporary compromise made when the Arab side is unable to defeat and destroy its enemy.

For groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran, an "arrangement" merely restores the pre-conflict situation, where the Jews feared confrontation, and thus allowed them to build their terror networks. Without decisive victory, any arrangement Israel agrees to will be viewed as an Israeli capitulation, resulting from weakness and a desire to gain quiet at all costs – even if that quiet is only temporary. Any such arrangement will also boost the enemy's desire to rebuild for the next round of conflict.

An arrangement manages the threat but preserves the enemy's capacity and allows it to recover. In contrast, "decisive action" means eliminating the enemy's military and political power entirely, ensuring it cannot rebuild. In Arab culture, there is no true concept of a lasting arrangement with a non-Muslim enemy. Instead, terms like sulha or hudna signify a temporary ceasefire, rooted in a need to regroup due to the inability to defeat the Jewish enemy. This pause serves as a period for force buildup and preparing for renewed conflict. To achieve this, they may sign any document the adversary presents, using vague terms like "peace" and "calm," dimming the enemy's vigilance. The esteemed Islamic scholar Professor Moshe Sharon often quotes the ninth-century thinker Ibn Qutayba, who wrote: "We are Arabs. We advance and delay, add and subtract, but never with intent to deceive." The message is clear.

3

On May 10, 1994, about six months after signing the first Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat visited Johannesburg. During a speech at a mosque, he explained his reasoning for signing the accord: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca… Just as Muhammad accepted that treaty, we accept this one. But to continue the path to Jerusalem, we must go together… I cannot do this alone, without the help of the Islamic nation… You must come and fight, and begin the jihad to liberate Jerusalem…"

This declaration should have been enough to remove Arafat and his terrorists from our land. Yet, we were blinded by empty words and refused to see the truth. Yigal Carmon, founder of MEMRI – the Middle East Media Research Institute – recalled that after Arafat's speech, he received a recording of it. He tried to give it to journalist Nahum Barnea, who declined. "Listen to the truth of what Arafat is saying publicly," Carmon urged. Barnea replied, "There is no truth; every piece of information must be evaluated by whom it serves, and you serve the enemies of peace."

4

The agreement Arafat referenced was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, an accord the Prophet Muhammad made with the Quraysh tribe in 628 CE and a model for all treaties with non-Muslims. Six years earlier, Muhammad fled from Mecca and the Quraysh to Medina, and the treaty secured a ten-year truce with the tribe, allowing him and his followers to make a pilgrimage to Mecca for three days each year. Freed from any immediate threat on that front, Muhammad soon turned to confront the large Jewish community of Khaybar. Muhammad laid siege to the Jews of Khaybar, and their surrender and subsequent status established a precedent for the treatment of non-Muslims under Islamic rule. Non-Muslims had to live as dhimmi (protected persons) required to pay a humiliating poll tax and remain in a position of submission and loyalty, which became the standard for Jews under Islam.

After two years, Muhammad had grown in strength and felt ready to capture Mecca. In 630, he returned with a force of 10,000, conquering the city and nullifying the treaty. War had become the better option for him.

It was this historical model that guided Arafat's approach to the Oslo Accords. He started action in that direction as soon as he set foot in Gaza. Shamefully, Israelis failed to recognize this cultural aspect. At the time, Arafat's terror group was in a weakened state. Following his expulsion from Beirut to Tunis after the First Lebanon War, and with the first intifada losing steam towards the end of the 1980s, the PLO had become internationally isolated, especially after its support of Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. Yet the architects of Oslo revived the PLO, conferring upon it global legitimacy. Through the agreement, thousands of militants, sworn to Israel's destruction, were allowed into Gaza and the West Bank, and armed by Israel, which expected them to help ensure its security. This "stroke of genius" won its architects three Nobel Peace Prizes.

5

If we recognize the vast cultural gap between two entirely distinct value systems, we can better manage the region's risk dynamics. We see "peace" in a way that is completely different to the way the other nations of the region see it. For them, peace in the sense we see it, is not part and parcel of their values. The notion that our enemies could negotiate true peace is misleading, exploiting our desire for quiet, even if temporary and imaginary.

The only currency valued by our adversaries is land. They demand land in exchange for nothing, or rather for "peace," a promise they will break as soon as they are able. Professor Sharon recounted that during negotiations between Israel and Egypt, President Sadat told him to relay to Prime Minister Begin that "this is a bazaar, and the goods are expensive." Sharon understood that Sadat expected that Israel would negotiate firmly rather than cede all of Sinai. Historically, the defeated party in war has always paid in land.

While we missed that opportunity, now, in the aftermath of the horrific massacre perpetrated by the Arabs of Gaza and the long war that has ensued, they must pay in the only currency they understand - land. This will sear defeat in their collective consciousness. A similar approach should be taken against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, delivering a crushing blow to the Iranian snake's head. This is how true victory is achieved.

The post On treaties and delusions of peace appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Hezbollah operatives captured during recent Israel Defense Forces (IDF) ground operations in southern Lebanon have disclosed during interrogations that the organization paid off UNIFIL personnel to use their positions in the region, according to security sources who spoke to Israel Hayom.

These sources, privy to the details, revealed that Hezbollah also took control of UNIFIL cameras in compounds near the Israeli border and utilized them for their own purposes. In light of these revelations and UNIFIL's glaring failure to prevent Hezbollah's entrenchment along the border Israel plans to rely primarily on commitments from the Lebanese army in any future arrangement with Lebanon, rather than on UNIFIL, which has proven ineffective over the years and is now accused of frequently collaborating with Hezbollah operatives.

A force mired in failure

UNIFIL, a UN peacekeeping force, was deployed in southern Lebanon under a UN Security Council resolution following Operation Litani in 1978 and has since operated under various mandates. Initially lacking enforcement powers until the Second Lebanon War, its mandate was expanded in 2006 from peacekeeping to limited enforcement authority.

UN Resolution 1701, adopted at the war's conclusion, authorized UNIFIL soldiers to stop Hezbollah operatives from engaging in terrorist activities south of the Litani River. However, the UNIFIL force has failed spectacularly in its mission, with Israel claiming in some instances that it even facilitates Hezbollah's plans under its watch.

Even as the IDF recently entered Lebanon for ground operations near the border to dismantle Hezbollah's terror network, UNIFIL adamantly refused Israeli pleas to evacuate their positions and withdraw from the border area.

The organization insists on maintaining its presence in the line of fire, thereby endangering foreign soldiers from various countries serving in the force. UNIFIL's refusal to evacuate its personnel caught Israel off guard, prompting attempts through multiple channels to persuade the organization to retreat from the danger zone.

Israel suspects that UNIFIL's insistence on staying is partly an attempt to obscure its ongoing failure to prevent Hezbollah's arms buildup and blatant violations of Resolution 1701. Compounding the issue, UNIFIL has recently leveled accusations at the IDF, claiming that Merkava tanks forcibly entered one of the organization's village positions, destroying the gate.

The IDF explained that the incident occurred during heavy anti-tank missile fire on its forces, which wounded several soldiers. To evacuate the wounded, tanks had to reverse in an area where they couldn't advance due to the threat of fire.

Furthermore, the IDF reports that in recent months, Hezbollah has been launching missiles and rockets at Israel from sites adjacent to UNIFIL positions, with some projectiles landing close to their outposts.

Diplomatic fallout

The friction between the IDF and UNIFIL is drawing international condemnation, undermining the IDF's efforts to build international legitimacy for its operations in southern Lebanon and causing significant diplomatic damage with European countries.

Israel's UN ambassador, Danny Danon, recently stated, "Hezbollah terrorists use UNIFIL outposts as hiding places and set up ambushes nearby. The UN's insistence on keeping UNIFIL soldiers in the line of fire is incomprehensible."

Israeli sources indicate that the UN currently intends to maintain UNIFIL's presence in the sector even after the war ends. However, given the organization's abject failure, Israel plans to rely more heavily on the responsibilities it hopes the Lebanese army will assume, and less on the UN force that failed to enforce its mandate.

The post Dramatic testimony suggests UN peacekeepers bribed by Hezbollah appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Over the past week, the confrontation between Israel and UNIFIL – the United Nations peacekeeping force stationed in southern Lebanon – has become inevitable. If not on the ground, then certainly in rhetorical and diplomatic exchanges. Once again, Israel finds itself ensnared in a familiar conflict with an odd UN entity, whose real role has always been somewhat unclear.

UNIFIL was deployed to southern Lebanon in 1978, following UN Security Council Resolution 425 after Operation Litani. Israel hoped that the force would hinder terrorist attacks on its northern border. Did that happen? Absolutely not. The terrorist organizations were unimpressed by the blue helmets. Their attacks on Israel escalated, their boldness grew, and their weaponry became so advanced that Israel was forced to launch Operation Peace for Galilee, which turned into the First Lebanon War.

In the years that followed, UNIFIL did not pose a real obstacle to the malicious forces. It was Israel's Security Zone in southern Lebanon that curbed most attacks, not the UN battalions stationed in the area, who mainly enjoyed the benefit of high salaries to send back to their families in third–world countries. After Israel's withdrawal from the Security Zone, the folly of relying on UNIFIL was fully exposed, as Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations blatantly defied the international force and operated freely under its protection.

But instead of facing the truth, Israel continued to delude itself. Instead of recognizing that the mechanism was fundamentally flawed and useless, some believed that it could be fixed through diplomatic wordplay. Following the Second Lebanon War, Israel's government demanded two things it believed would make UNIFIL more effective in preventing Hezbollah from growing and threatening Israel: expanding the force's mandate to include authority to act against terrorists and incorporating soldiers from Western countries.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701, passed after the Second Lebanon War, seemed to address Israel's two demands. On the one hand, UNIFIL soldiers were authorized to arrest armed Hezbollah militants if they threatened the force or engaged in terrorist activities south of the Litani River. On the other hand, friendly Italy was put in charge of the force, and French soldiers were added.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni presented this as a great achievement. Their assumption was that the chaos would end and everything would be different now. But this assumption proved to be yet another bluff. During the 18 years of UNIFIL's "new" operations, Hezbollah has only strengthened its grip on southern Lebanon, both in quantity and quality. In recent weeks, IDF soldiers have been uncovering and destroying terror bases built under UNIFIL's nose, in clear violation of its mandate. But this is only half the problem. The other half, equally ugly and dangerous, surfaced when the IDF finally began dismantling what Hezbollah had developed under UNIFIL's protection.

At this moment, UN representatives and the leaders of the countries sending troops to UNIFIL have cried out. They ignored Hezbollah's ongoing violations, but suddenly, the IDF's defensive action to remove Hezbollah's violations became intolerable to them. After no one demanded that Hezbollah be stopped, suddenly everyone is shouting at Israel: "Stop!" And if Israel didn't have enough troubles, now it faces another: not only did these Western soldiers fail to protect Israel from Hezbollah, but their presence has now turned them into Hezbollah's human shield, threatening Israel's relations with key nations.

Who are they really protecting

A comprehensive study by Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and President of Human Rights Voices Anne Bayefsky, recently published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, reveals that the UN and its institutions follow a tested and proven method of reversing reality: excusing, justifying, and blaming the victim. This approach was in full force after October 7. Initially, in the wake of the massacre, senior UN officials – from Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk, to UN representatives on health issues – sought to downplay Hamas's actions.

Next, they sought to justify them, expressing sympathy for the attackers and portraying their actions as merely a Palestinian response to Israeli deeds. From there, it was a short leap to blaming Israel itself for the massacre of its own citizens, from babies to the elderly. This inversion of reality was completed in just a few days. As Albanese shamelessly declared on February 7, 2024: "The victims of October 7 were not killed because they were Jewish, but in response to Israeli oppression."

This same approach is found throughout all UN agencies and actions, including with UNIFIL. Hezbollah's violations are concealed, justified, and rationalized, while Israel is blamed for the terrorist group's actions against it in territory supposedly overseen by UN soldiers.

A false paradigm of equality

If this sounds familiar, it's because it is. Back then, the goal was twofold: to justify the terrorists' murderous violence against Israel while concluding that Israel had no right to defend itself. The Egyptian judge, Nabil Elaraby, expressed it clearly when he said, "Throughout history, occupation has always met with armed resistance – violence begets violence." Elaraby held various positions in the UN as a representative of Egypt and was not the only one. All UN agencies and institutions are filled with individuals like him.

UNIFIL, too, promotes the false moral equivalence between the terrorists and Israel, the target of their attacks. UN institutions often boast of this approach, presenting it as a sign of impartiality, but it's nothing more than a fiction. In practice, they always fear dealing with Hezbollah militants.

Bayefsky told Israel Hayom the following:

"The United Nations operates as the political arm of the states and terrorist organizations that don't recognize Israel's right to exist and are committed to genocide against the Jewish people. The majority of UN member states are not free democracies. The top human rights body, the Human Rights Council, has members which are among the world's worst human rights abusers. Nothing gets done at the Security Council without the approval of the Russians and the Chinese who each hold a veto. The UN has no definition of terrorism because Islamic states have a treaty that says killing Jews aka 'occupiers' of Arab–claimed land is not terrorism. The UN building hosts a permanent 'Palestine' exhibit – disputing the legitimacy of the partition resolution of 1947 (agreeing to a Jewish and an Arab state) – beside a Holocaust exhibit. Every visiting member of the public and student group is told, in effect, that Israelis are like Nazis.

"So where does this all leave Israel? Despite the mountains of evidence – including from the murderers, torturers and rapists themselves – the UN Security Council has never condemned Hamas for October 7th or for anything at all. The same goes for the General Assembly and Human Rights Council. The Security Council – the UN body with a job description to maintain international peace and security – has never even condemned October 7th. UN women's rights authorities ignored and even questioned the veracity of the atrocities Palestinian terrorists perpetrated against Israeli women and girls. Me–too–unless–you're–a–Jew was sickeningly dead on.

"The UN's top official, Secretary–General Antonio Guterres, said on October 9, 2023 that October 7th didn't happen in a vacuum and proceeded to try to hand mass murderers a political win while mutilated Jewish bodies were still in unidentifiable piles. Israel gave the world incontrovertible proof of UN involvement in October 7th and the Gaza war ever since: UN employees who participated in the butchery, UN facilities doubling as munitions depots and terrorist staging grounds, UN agencies contributing to human shielding by impairing civilian evacuations, UN agencies disseminating false information on casualties and facts.

"Whether operating in Lebanon, Jerusalem, Gaza or the West Bank/Judea & Samaria, UN agencies dance to the same drummer. No doubt they have soothing names, like 'peacekeepers.' In practice, it is an absurdity to call UNIFIL members 'peacekeepers' when their de facto role for decades has been to operate as Hezbollah enablers, a job description to stand down and watch terrorists rearm and reorganize to kill Jews.

"Today, as long as UNIFIL deliberately remains in harm's way, having been duly warned, their members aren't even unfortunate human shields. They are shielding Hezbollah on purpose. As long as their UN bosses like the Secretary–General and the Security Council insist that they serve as cannon fodder for a terrorist organization openly dedicated to the violation of the right to life of the civilians in a neighboring state – then blame for UN casualties lies not only with the terrorists operating among them, but with the UN itself.

"Perhaps what is most important at this moment in time is to recognize the role being played by the Biden–Harris administration. The Biden–Harris team is using the United Nations as a weapon, as a sword of Damocles hanging over Israel's head. They dangle the specter of withholding a veto from an anti–Israel Security Council attack – just as their Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, did. For almost four years, the Biden–Harris foreign policy has been to legitimize UN bodies, including UNRWA and the Human Rights Council, thereby undermining any prospect of accountability for shameful UN bias and antisemitism. Biden–Harris officials produce throw–away lines on 'reform' and 'change,' while throwing hundreds of millions of dollars on the unreformed and unchanged. At least until the American election, the ball is really in Israel's court. If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"

This article corrects an earlier version that misquoted Professor Bayefsky.

The post How UNIFIL became Hezbollah's human shield appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

1. Europe and Germany

The "Old Continent," or more precisely, the European Union, is currently divided into two main camps: Germany and the Eastern European countries on one side, and on the other, Western European countries led by France, Spain, and Italy. Germany's traditional support for Israel is understandable, rooted in historical reasons; the country has undergone a process of self-reckoning with the horrors of the Holocaust and fully grasps the significance of Iran's "Ring of Fire" surrounding Israel. It also understands the moral obligation to break Iran's stranglehold. This week, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock made statements that must be resonated throughout the West: "…we have made it clear time and again that self-defense means, of course, not only attacking terrorists, but also destroying them. This's why I have made it so clear that when Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools, then we end up in very difficult waters. But we're not shying away from this. This is why I made it clear at the United Nations that civilian sites could lose their protected status if terrorists abuse this status. That's what Germany stands for – and that's what we mean when we refer to Israel's security."

2. Italy and our war

In contrast to Germany's moral clarity, Italy has never viewed its fascist and Nazi past as a subject that imposes any special obligation toward the State of Israel. Italians affirm Israel's right to defend itself, but these declarations are meaningless. Since Israel's establishment, history has changed: Jews defend themselves without asking for permission from anyone. Italy should have adopted the German minister's stance and declared too that Israel has the right to eliminate terrorists and their strongholds, even when they use civilians as human shields. Instead, Italy halted the supply of spare parts for weapons it had sold to us, claiming that such sales violate Italian law, which prohibits arms trade in conflict zones. Yet this did not stop them from supplying weapons to Ukraine. Moreover, Hamas is officially recognized as a terrorist organization by the Italian government, meaning this is not a conflict with a sovereign state but with a Nazi-like organization. Italy also opposed Israel's entry into Rafah. Worse yet, last week, following the attack on a UNIFIL post that Hezbollah was hiding behind, Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto declared that this could constitute a "war crimes," no less!

3. Italy at the UN

Israel provides Italy with more in terms of security than it receives – both openly and through intelligence sharing. In June 2021, for the first time, Israeli F-35 jets left Israel for a three-week joint exercise with the Italian Air Force (with the British and American air forces joining for a few days). At exactly the same time, Italy abstained from voting against a UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish a commission to investigate "war crimes" during Operation Guardian of the Walls (May 6-21, 2021). Before the vote, I asked the Italian Foreign Minister at the time to vote against it, as Italy was well aware of the truth and of exactly what kind of organization Hamas is. It didn't help. So, I went to the media and said that by abstaining from a moral vote against the resolution, Italy had declared that Israel and Hamas were one and the same. These remarks forced the Italians to defend themselves, but regardless such modes of action are part of a longstanding policy.

Since 2015, the UN has voted on 155 resolutions against Israel (for comparison: in that time, there have been 8 resolutions against Iran and 9 against North Korea). What role has Italy played in this theatre of the absurd? It has voted 110 times against Israel and abstained 40 times; only twice has it voted with us (those two instances occurred early in Giorgia Meloni's term as Prime Minister, following two years of meetings with her when she was in opposition, where we demonstrated the disproportionate nature of Italy's stance towards Israel. But soon enough, she reverted to traditional policy).

4. UNIFIL

A brouhaha is currently ongoing in Italy because Israel targeted a UNIFIL post (no Italian soldiers were harmed). I worked in the past with the Italian contingent's commanders. Italy spends about half a billion euros (!) annually on its presence in Lebanon. I understood from the commanders on the ground what I had already known from my sources in Israel, that their presence is symbolic, as they never had the ability to enforce UN policy on the terrorist organizations. Hezbollah didn't allow them access to suspect sites or to carry out enforcement actions without prior coordination. Hezbollah's terror empire was built right under UNIFIL's nose along Israel's border; UNIFIL knew about it and did nothing. Everyone heard the sounds of tunnel digging and knew about the weapons stored in civilian homes in villages facing Israel. Had Hezbollah decided to invade Israel on October 7, 2023, alongside Hamas, they would have done so unimpeded by UNIFIL. The plan was to conquer the Galilee, massacre thousands of Israelis, and take hostages to tunnels in Lebanon. What would Italy have done in the event that this scenario had materialized – no doubt, it would have once again talked about "Israel's right to defend itself."

A significant part of public opinion in Italy has adopted an anti-Israel stance during the war. The fact is that Israel hasn't invested in public diplomacy in Europe in general, and in Italy in particular. Even the 47-minute horror film of Hamas' barbarism on October 7 was shown to only a handful of people, instead of being screened at large events for politicians, journalists, and social influencers in Rome, as well as in the South and North. It's not too late to turn the trend.

There have been rumors that Italy is willing to participate in a new peace-keeping force in Gaza to be established after the war. Unbelievable. A key lesson from this war and its causes is that Israel must not rely on foreign forces to safeguard its security, neither in the North nor the South. Let us remember the prophet Isaiah in the 8th century BCE, who taught that in matters concerning our existence, we must not rely on others but only on ourselves and on our God: "Then I looked, but there was none to help; I stared, but there was none to aid – So My own arm wrought the triumph, And My own rage was My aid."

5. Sukkot

The past year has further deepened the historical significance of the State of Israel for the Jewish people and for the world. Throughout history, after every pogrom we experienced, all we could do the next day was flee or hide. In contrast, on October 8, we rose from the ashes of our communities and fought back. In truth, we did so already on October 7. The war in the South and North against the forces of global evil that sought to annihilate us is proof of a profound change in history. Jews are no longer willing to be victims, even if that costs us the sympathy of the world. We have returned home, and we do not intend to allow anyone to treat us in the way the world has grown accustomed to over the past two thousand years.
The walls of a sukkah are merely symbolic. They cannot physically protect those dwelling within. In the Diaspora, it was dangerous to make this temporary dwelling one that we would stay in for the duration of the holiday. Only in Israel can we truly live in our Sukkot, because the IDF protects the walls of the state, thereby rebuilding the fallen "Sukkah of David." In the Zohar, the sukkah is called the Tzila deMeheimnuta, the "shade of faith," a protective shield for our people as they walk through the valley of the shadow of death among nations and peoples, through destruction and redemption, and even in times of war. In modern terms, this "shade of faith" is our identity, whose strength protects us. In this sense, the sukkah is also a symbol of our true national freedom. I once told Jews in Italy that when you enter a sukkah abroad, for a moment, you step into the Land of Israel.

The post UNIFIL's fallen Sukkah appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has launched a scathing critique of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), calling for its immediate withdrawal from the Israel-Lebanon border. Netanyahu expressed frustration that the peacekeeping force has shirked its duties by not implementing its mandate from 2006 through UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which prohibits Hezbollah from maintaining a presence in the area and empowers the UN to enforce it. The video message, released by the Prime Minister's Office, comes amidst the ongoing limited military campaign in southern Lebanon launched by the IDF in recent days.

In a statement released by the Prime Minister's Office, Netanyahu addressed multiple aspects of Israel's ongoing conflicts, with a particular focus on the role of UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.

"We are marking one year of the harsh war that was forced on us – the war of redemption against Iran's axis of evil, which has risen up to destroy us," Netanyahu began, setting the tone for his address. He emphasized Israel's resolve, stating, "We are more determined than ever to ensure our future; we are more determined than ever to defeat our enemies."

Video: Netanyahu speaks about UNIFIL / CREDIT: PMO

Regarding operations in Lebanon, the prime minister made a bold claim: "We eliminated Nasrallah and his senior personnel." He described ongoing military actions, saying, "Our heroic soldiers are destroying Hezbollah's weapons, command centers, and terrorist tunnels. They are fighting forcefully to return our residents in the north safely to their homes."

Netanyahu was careful to distinguish between Lebanon's civilian population and Hezbollah, asserting, "We are not fighting the Lebanese people, we are fighting Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah, which has occupied Lebanon."

The crux of Netanyahu's address was a direct appeal to UN Secretary-General António Guterres regarding UNIFIL. "The time has come for you to withdraw UNIFIL from Hezbollah strongholds and from the combat zones," he declared. The prime minister claimed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has repeatedly requested this action, only to face refusal.

"The IDF has requested this repeatedly and has met with repeated refusal, which has the effect of providing Hezbollah terrorists with human shields. Your refusal to evacuate UNIFIL soldiers has turned them into hostages of Hezbollah. This endangers both them and the lives of our soldiers. We regret the harm to UNIFIL soldiers, and we are doing our utmost to prevent such harm. But the simplest and most obvious way to ensure this is simply to withdraw them from the danger zone."

Netanyahu accused the UN of endangering its peacekeepers, stating, "Your refusal to evacuate UNIFIL soldiers has turned them into hostages of Hezbollah. This endangers both them and the lives of our soldiers." He emphasized the urgency of the situation, saying, "Mr Secretary General, get the UNIFIL forces out of harm's way. It should be done right now, immediately."

He reaffirmed Israel's commitment to retrieving all hostages, saying, "The 101 of our hostages who are in Gaza have always been our chief concern. We will do everything to bring them, all of them, back home, the living and the deceased."

The post Netanyahu claims UN force 'human shield' for Hezbollah appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"The decision to respond is still valid; the response will be serious and calculated," he said.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Nasrallah also accused external forces of intervening in Lebanon's internal affairs in an effort to sway public opinion in the country against Hezbollah.

"There are countries that use cyber armies maliciously, and try forcing public opinion on other countries. They pay tens of millions of dollars to the media to disseminate lies about Hezbollah," he claimed.

"The media campaign currently confronting the resistance is unprecedented. They implement a policy of attack via articles and media outlets, all originating from one government in one dark room. For example, we see the same news on channels such as Al-Arabiya, Al-Hadath, Sky News and several others," Nasrallah said.

The United Nations Security Council, meanwhile, unanimously approved a resolution Friday cutting its peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon and expanding its mandate to address US and Israeli concerns about Hezbollah activities along the border.

The French-drafted resolution reduced the troop ceiling for the force, known as UNIFIL, from 15,000 to 13,000 under US pressure. And it also made another concession to the Trump administration and close ally Israel.

It calls on the Lebanese government to facilitate "prompt and full access" to sites requested by UN peacekeepers for investigation, including tunnels crossing the UN-drawn Blue Line between Lebanon and Israel. And it urges freedom of movement and unimpeded access for peacekeepers to all parts of the Blue Line, and condemns "in the strongest terms" all attempts to restrict UN troop movements and attacks on mission personnel.

Israel has repeatedly accused Hezbollah, backed by its greatest foe Iran, of impeding UNIFIL peacekeepers from carrying out their mandate, a view strongly backed by the Trump administration.

In 2019, Israel destroyed a series of attack tunnels, dug under the border by Hezbollah.

The resolution gives the US a symbolic victory, but it almost certainly will also be welcomed by many countries that view UNIFIL as critical to maintaining peace in the volatile region and strongly support its current mandate which is largely maintained for another year.

"Today we halt a long period of Council complacency on UNIFIL and the growing and destabilizing influence of Iran and its client, the terrorist organization Hezbollah," US Ambassador Kelly Craft said in a statement after the vote. "The Trump Administration is deeply concerned these last years about UNIFIL's overall inability to contain the Hezbollah menace.

"We are not going to allow this to stand," she said. "The Council must join us in confronting this."

Kraft also urged Lebanon's government to redouble efforts to ensure that UNIFIL can fulfill its mandate.

"If, however, today's action does not trigger necessary improvements, including improved access for UNIFIL and steps to diminish the vast and growing Hezbollah arsenal of weapons, council members must be prepared to take further action when the mandate comes up for renewal next year," she warned.

Israel's UN Ambassador Gilad Erdan went further, calling the resolution "a last warning" for Lebanon's government and declaring that it "will be held responsible and will bear full responsibility for any escalation of tensions or the grave consequences of such actions" if Hezbollah continues turning southern Lebanon "into a base for its terrorist activity under UNIFIL's nose."

Erdan said Israel will respond "with force" to any terrorist attacks from Lebanese territory.

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 15 members of the council voted by email. Security Council president, Indonesia's UN Ambassador Dian Triansyah Djani, sent a letter to council members, obtained by The Associated Press, saying "the draft resolution received 15 votes in favor ... (and) has been adopted as resolution 2539."

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres wrote to the council on July 29 recommending a 12-month renewal of UNIFIL's mandate, stressing the importance of maintaining high troop strength.

While the resolution reduces the troop ceiling from 15,000 to 13,000, it will not require any cuts in the current peacekeeping force. That's because UNIFIL's current strength is about 10,250 troops, well below the ceiling.

Craft, the US envoy, called the reduction "an important step toward right-sizing a mission that has for years been over-resourced given the limits on its freedom of movement and access."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

According to UNIFIL, it currently has about 10,250 troops including more than 9,400 ground troops and over 850 naval personnel assigned to its Maritime Task Force. In addition, the mission has about 900 civilian staff, both international and national.

The resolution affirms the Security Council's "strong continuing commitment to the existing UNIFIL mandate." And it reaffirms the necessity for Lebanon's armed forces to deploy in southern Lebanon and its territorial water "at an accelerated pace" to implement a key mandate provision.

It asks secretary-general Guterres to present the first elements of a plan to improve UNIFIL's "efficiency and effectiveness" within 60 days.

The post Nasrallah: Foreign 'cyber armies' targeting public opinion in Lebanon appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.