Hezbollah fires 200 rockets at Israel, drone strikes nursing home. UNIFIL has about 10,000 troops in Lebanon. Their mandate includes enforcing a UN resolution that explicitly prohibits armed operations by Hezbollah near this ceasefire line.
Resolutions like UN 194 and 242 are seen by some as undermining direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, with critics arguing that they impose conditions that hinder genuine dialogue. The interplay between these various factors—UN interventions, the role of Hezbollah, and the ongoing challenges faced by UNRWA—complicates the path toward peace in both the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Lebanese contexts. The effectiveness of international bodies in mediating these conflicts continues to be a subject of debate. Hence many Israeli leaders now favor breaking off all diplomatic relations with the UN and expelling the UN from Gaza, Samaria, and Israel altogether.
UN Resolution 1701 expanded UNIFIL’s mandate. The Blue Line came into existence on June 7, 2000. The Blue Line’s backstory involves tragedy. In 1978, after the Coastal Road massacre (carried out by PLO operatives), Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon. Operation Litani ensued, and the IDF occupied most of the region. The United Nations drew it up with a specific purpose: to confirm whether Israel had fully withdrawn its forces from Lebanon.
2006 The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1701. Its mission? To end the hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. The resolution’s goal was a permanent ceasefire. Resolution 1701 had a vision—a buffer zone. A no-go area between the Blue Line and the Litani River. UN propaganda stated: This zone would be “free of any armed personnel, assets, and weapons” other than those of the Lebanese government and UNIFIL.
The Litani River—a natural boundary about 29 kilometers (18 miles) north of the border. Resolution 1701 says, “No armed forces south of the Litani, except UNIFIL and the Lebanese military.” On October 8th, 2023, Hezbollah initiated rocket strikes on Israel in response to the 7th October Hamas-led attack on Israel. These strikes targeted the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms region.
The situation along the Israel-Lebanon border is undeniably tense, and the actions of Hezbollah have had significant consequences. Since October 8th, 2023, Hezbollah has relentlessly fired rockets and drones into Israel. These attacks have targeted both civilian areas and military posts. The recent incident in Herzliya, where a home was hit by a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle), underscores the severity of the situation.
The fact that dozens of rockets were launched at Israeli cities like Haifa and Safed during Yom Kippur weekend is deeply concerning. Civilians are caught in the crossfire, and the impact on their lives cannot be overstated. UNIFIL tasked with maintaining peace and stability. Their mandate includes monitoring the buffer zone between the Blue Line and the Litani River.
UNIFIL was established by the UN Security Council in March 1978 after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. UNIFIL supposedly monitors and patrols the Blue Line. Hezbollah’s influence extends beyond its military capabilities and directly impacts the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and other security institutions. Hezbollah enjoys legitimacy within the Lebanese state, yet it operates independently, often without full responsibility to the Lebanese people. Since 2008, Hezbollah has invoked the formula of “the army, the people, and the resistance” to justify its actions. This formula grants it a special status within Lebanon’s security framework. Hezbollah is not considered an auxiliary but rather an integral part of Lebanon’s security equation.
Hezbollah loyalists have infiltrated various state institutions, including the LAF and other security agencies. As a result, these agencies are often seen as extensions of Hezbollah’s influence rather than independent bodies. The group’s use of weapons to intimidate opponents has allowed it to entrench its position within the Lebanese state. The failure of UN Resolution The failure to disarm Hezbollah a key Israeli criticism.
The LAF, despite its official role as Lebanon’s national military force, faces challenges due to Hezbollah’s dominance. The security agencies’ loyalty to Hezbollah complicates their independence and effectiveness. Currently Israel fights to curb Hezbollah’s influence. But true change requires comprehensive reform within Lebanon’s political system itself.
Lebanon’s governance model relies on sectarian leaders acting as intermediaries between communities and the state. These leaders compete for state resources to provide services and benefits to their narrow sectarian support bases.
Allegations surrounding UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) and UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) have indeed raised concerns about their effectiveness, transparency, and integrity. UNRWA, tasked with providing humanitarian aid to Palestinian refugees, has faced serious allegations. Senior levels of UNRWA leadership implicated in charges of sexual misconduct, nepotism, retaliation, discrimination and other abuses of authority. The UN has done nothing. Both actively maintain and promote conflict rather than peace. The hate propaganda in UN Palestinian schools an utter disgrace.
UNRWA’s role has evolved over the years, but the fundamental question of repatriation and resettlement remains unresolved. Over the years, UNRWA has faced allegations of mismanagement, inefficiency, and political bias. The issue of Palestinian refugees and their right of return serves as proof. 18 million Germans expelled from Prussia do not have “the right of return”. Yet Arabs who fought to throw the Jews into the Sea, they mysteriously have some imaginary “right of return”?
Israel not consulted on this foreign imposed international clause: the right of return. The Palestinian right of return refers to the political position that Palestinian refugees—both first-generation refugees and their descendants—have a right to return to the homes they or their forebears left behind during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (resulting from the 1948 Palestine war) and the 1967 Six-Day War. Israel rejects this Chapter VI suggestion which UN propaganda pretends exists as a Chapter VII ultimatum. The question of the Palestinian right of return remains a deeply contentious issue. Israel’s rejection of this right, viewed as politically motivated, contrasts with historical examples of refugee populations in other contexts.
The role of international bodies like the UN in addressing these issues is often criticized for being ineffective, with claims that they may perpetuate rather than resolve conflicts. The right of return is a key demand for many Palestinians and a major point of negotiation in peace talks. The unresolved nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to hinder any comprehensive solution for repatriation or resettlement, as political negotiations often stall.
UN Resolution 194 and UN 242 two-state solution have usurped direct negotiations between Israel and defeated Palestinians. The UN’s most recent Chapter VII condemnation of Israel does not function to “mediate and facilitate direct negotiations” but rather to dictate terms of Israeli surrender.
Jerusalem argues that these resolutions, along with others, have effectively side-lined direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. They contend that the UN’s framework can impose conditions that limit the scope of negotiations. Resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which can authorize action to maintain or restore international peace and security, have sometimes been viewed as unilateral condemnations of Israel, particularly in the context of its military actions. Critics argue that such resolutions do not facilitate dialogue but rather dictate terms. Many in Israel view the UN’s actions as biased against them, feeling that the organization tends to emphasize condemnation rather than fostering a balanced dialogue that could lead to peace.
Resolutions like 194, 242, and 1701 have been criticized by some as undermining direct negotiations between the parties involved. The concern is that these resolutions can impose conditions that hinder genuine dialogue and compromise. There is a perception that the UN tends to take a more adversarial stance against Israel rather than acting as an impartial mediator. The lack of trust in international bodies to act as neutral mediators is a significant obstacle to achieving lasting peace in the region.
The effectiveness of the UN and other international bodies in mediating these conflicts is widely debated. There are concerns that their interventions may perpetuate rather than resolve the conflicts, with some Israelis favoring a complete break in diplomatic relations with the UN. The deeply entrenched nature of these conflicts and the challenges faced by the international community in attempting to mediate and resolve them. The perceived biases and ineffectiveness of certain UN bodies have eroded trust and complicated the path towards a lasting peace agreement.
איחוד הלוואות- לחיות נכון עם ההלוואות והמשכנתא (youtube.com)
Conflict Resolution 