The Israel Situation » Hezbollah

Lies In Iran’s Media Exposed

Eric — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:21:28 +0000

I just visited Iran’s national TVnews website at the suggestion of Google News. The article there blew me away. It takes lying, embellishing, and omission of facts to a whole new level.

The first thing I noticed when I clicked through was the caption of the image, which is completely incorrect.

The United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was formed after the 33-day conflict and is tasked with maintaining security of Lebanon’s southern border with Israel.

Yes, UNIFIL was formed to keep peace on the Lebanon/Israel border. However, there is an error and clearly biased statement in this caption. First, UNIFIL was not formed after the 2006 Lebanon war. UNIFIL was created in 1978 to assist in keeping southern Lebanon free from terrorists (the reason Israel invaded in the first place) and help the Lebanese government take control of the area. Well, Hezbollah controls the area, not the government. And, they were off by about 28 years on the founding of UNIFIL. It also lasted 34 days, not 33, but I won’t fight about that.

Amid new reports that Israel is getting ready for another war against Lebanon, people in Lebanon have marked the fourth anniversary of Israel’s assault on the country.

Israel did not “assault” Lebanon, as is spelled out here. Israel responded to an unprovoked cross border raid by Hezbollah (while using UN marked vehicles allegedly taken from UNIFIL) and murdered two soldiers. Hezbollah made the first aggression of the war by firing the first of thousands of rockets into Israel on July 12th, 2006.

In 2006, Israel’s devastating 33-day war against Lebanon claimed the lives of more than 1,200 Lebanese civilians, many of them women and children.

According to the best reports I found, Lebanon reported that 1,191 civilians were killed in addition to 500-600 terrorists. While there is nothing completely wrong in this sentence, it is misleading.

However, the Israeli military faced fierce Hezbollah resistance and was eventually forced to leave Lebanon without achieving any of its objectives.

“Fierce resistance” is an interesting way to refer to an aggressive terrorist group. As is noted above, Hezbollah started the war. Based on that fact, Israel was really the fierce resistance, not Hezbollah. Israel was simply defending itself and trying to rescue its soldiers and stop the rocket attacks. Also, Israel did achieve many of its objectives. It was not a clear cut win like 1967, but Israel did kill hundreds of terrorists, stop the attacks, and severely damaged Hezbollah’s infrastructure.

The Israeli withdrawal came after the UN Security Council issued Resolution 1701, which ended the conflict and formed the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to maintain security of Lebanon’s southern border with Israel.

UN Resolution 1701 did lead to the cease fire, but UNIFIL was formed in 1987 with resolutions 425 and 426. Resolution 1701 was designed to end the current 2006 conflict and had nothing to do with a new security force. Even Ehud Olmert, who I hate, said something I can agree with on UNIFIL: “We didn’t like very much UNIFIL which was very useless and very helpless. Look what happened. Did you hear of any particular efforts of the United Nations UNIFIL force in the south of Lebanon to prevent the attacks against Israel in the first place. So they were not useful and that is why we were unhappy with them.” I would say they failed at their mission.

In all, this is just one more evidence of Iran’s hatred and bias against Israel and the quality reporting of the media in Muslim countries.

Lies In Iran’s Media Exposed is a post from: The Israel Situation

Preparing for War with Hezbollah

Eric — Fri, 21 May 2010 19:54:25 +0000

Recent reports show that Hezbollah is preparing for war. Recent reports show that Hezbollah is doing border reconnaissance. It also seems that Hezbollah is in the process of training exercises, with the help of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

Israel is hard at work as well. The IDF has been working with other government offices to plan for mass evacuations in the event of rocket attacks from Lebanon. Israel has been working on improved multi-layer missile defense systems for quite some time.

It is unfortunate that we are at a point where war in inevitable. Rather than working on prevention and deterrence, Israel has been forced into a position where defense planning and capabilities are much more important than diplomacy.

This is something that the rest of the world does not seem to understand. On September 11^th, 2001, people in the United States got a glimpse into daily life in Israel. As Menachem Begin once famously said, “Israel is still the only country in the world against which there is a written document to the effect that it must disappear.” There are parts of the Muslim world that wish the same fate on the United States.

This feeling has been quickly forgotten by the United States and appears foreign to leaders in Western Europe. While France is grappling with a growing internal Muslim population, the entire Muslim world has it out for Israel.

The Jewish people need the IDF to return to its level of strength, intimidation, and effectiveness of the late 1960s. In 1967, Israel proved that no matter what happens on each border, Israel could overcome and survive. Terrorist attacks from Lebanon and Gaza have weakened that international positioning, and terrorist groups are more brazen than ever.

Hopefully, under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, the IDF will not enter into a disorganized war against Hezbollah. It needs to be unified, strong, and prove that anyone who attacks Israel will pay a very high price.

Preparing for War with Hezbollah is a post from: The Israel Situation

Hezbollah Leader Threatens Attack on Ben Gurion Airport

Eric — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:38:40 +0000

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that in a future war with Israel, Hezbollah would attack Ben Gurion airport if Israel strikes the main airport in Beirut.

Reuters quotes Nasrallah as saying:

“If you hit Rafik al-Hariri international airport in Beirut, we will hit Ben-Gurion airport in Tel Aviv,” Nasrallah said via a live video-link to thousands of cheering Shi’ite followers.

“If you hit our ports, we will bomb your ports, and if you hit our oil refineries, we will bomb your oil refineries.”

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel has no plans for any wars. It seems, though, that Hezbollah is trying to renew violence in the region.

Hezbollah Leader Threatens Attack on Ben Gurion Airport is a post from: The Israel Situation

Which is the Road to Damascus?

Anthony Reich — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:36:37 +0000

The recent escalation in rhetoric on both sides of the Israeli-Syrian border has, once again, raised the profile of the relationship between the two countries. Defence Minister Ehud Barak told a gathering of senior IDF officers last week that, in the absence of a peace deal, Israel could find itself at war with Syria. Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Moallem, responded by saying that an attack on Syria would result in an all-out war. Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman warned that a war with Syria would result in the Syrian President, Bashar Assad, losing power. All of this seems such a far cry from 2008 when peace talks were being conducted between Israel and Syria via the offices of the Turkish mediators. What has changed so dramatically in two short years? Like many other aspects of Middle East politics, I believe that the answer has everything to do with Iran.

Iran has long been a key player in regional politics. It was in 1984, only 5 years after the overthrow of the Shah, that Iran was designated for the first time as a state sponsor of terrorism by the US. As the main sponsor of groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Mahdi army, there can be no doubt that Iran is one of the world’s most significant state sponsors of terrorism. It was one of the country’s on President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil”, and with good reason. More recently, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has upped the ante by calling for Israel’s destruction at every opportunity. Iran’s continued threats along with its importance as a significant producer of oil mean that Iran is likely to continue to greatly influence Middle East politics in the near future.

On the face of things, Syria and Iran seem to have very little in common. Iran is a theocracy while Syria is secular. Iran is largely made up of Persians and Shiite Muslims while Syria is mostly comprised of Sunni Muslims. They do not share a border, although they do share Iraq and Turkey as neighbours. Behind the scenes, however, they have a great deal in common. Economically, Syria is drawn to its regional ally. In its position as a “pariah” state, Syria is forced to create economic links with all that will agree to have economic ties with her. As Syria’s oil production declines and, eventually runs out, there is no doubt that Syria will be looking to Iran as a way to fill the gap that this creates in the local market. The main point that the two countries have in common is political – hatred of Israel. It is this fact that has drawn the two countries together over the years, a bond that currently seems to be stronger than ever. For Iran, Syria is vital in this link as Syria has a direct land border with Israel. This is even more pronounced when considering the control that Syria exercises over the Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon. Even though Iranian missiles could easily reach Israeli soil, a direct land invasion of Israel would require access via one of Israel’s neighbours. Syria and Lebanon provide this access for Iran.

When Turkey offered the chance to engage with Syria, Israel smelled an important opportunity to try to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. The chance to isolate Syria from Iran and prise it out of Iranian clutches appears to have been the main driving force behind Israel’s most recent attempts to negotiate a peace deal with Syria. There can be little doubt that such an agreement would weaken Iran’s access to Israel and, with it, the significant threat that Iran continues to pose to Israel.

For Syria, the decision whether to change the strategy that it has pursued against Israel for more than 60 years is not easy. The insult that Syrians continue to feel as a result of Israel having taken the Golan Heights during the Six Day War in 1967 seems to be a significant factor in shaping its foreign policy towards Israel. The optimism that was felt in western circles when Bashar Assad took over from his father in 2000 has largely not been borne out. Even though Dr. Bashar was viewed as more progressive than his father, and with a higher likelihood of guiding Syria towards closer links with the west, this has not happened. Syria can choose to keep close with Iran, keep sponsoring terror organisations and continue its relatively close links within the Arab world. Its alternative is to pursue a peace agreement with Israel and gain favour with the US and other western countries. Economically, the second is likely to be a much better option for Syria. Added to the fact that Syria and Iran are not comfortable bed partners, this is not beyond the realms of reality. Politically, however, Syria does not seem ready for this right now.

In the absence of being able to entice Syria away from its Iranian sponsor, there seems to be only one other way in which Dr. Bashar can be tempted towards closer western ties. This is to hope that Ahmadinejad can be unseated and that economic hardships in Iran will force it to give up its links with Syria (and hopefully, with it, the sponsorship of international terrorism). Until then, Syria will continue to warmonger and insult Israel in the knowledge that Iran stands right behind these threats. After all, Syria knows that, militarily, it is no match for Israel. Military threats will remain just that until Iran decides it wishes to take further action.

For Israel, any peace agreement with Syria must clearly require ties with Iran to be broken, and the cessation of the support of terrorist organisations. This is obviously in addition to the other more issues of the Golan Heights, water resources, military ceasefire and others. The real advantage to Israel of any peace with Syria is the cutting off of Iran’s supply route to its terror organisations. It is this issue that is driving Israel’s efforts to reach a peace with Assad’s regime. With the presence of Lieberman in the Israeli government and Dr. Bashar on the Syrian side, this seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

Which is the Road to Damascus? is a post from: The Israel Situation

US Intelligence: Hezbollah Arming for War With Israel

Eric — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:25:25 +0000

From Ha’aretz:

The U.S. is concerned that the continued flow of arms to the Hezbollah militant organization could prompt a war between Israel and Lebanon, State Department official Jeff Feltman said in remarks published Sunday by the London-based Al-Hayat daily.

Feltman, who serves as Assistant Secretary of U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, told the daily that the U.S. had no evidence of any Israeli plan to attack its northern neighbor.

Nevertheless, Feltman said he was growing increasingly worried by reports describing the quantity and types of weapons being smuggled to the terrorist organization in clear violation of United Nations Resolution 1701, which put an end to the 2006 war.

The UN resolution clearly demanded a weapons-free south Lebanon, said Feltman, but the world had yet to see that put into play.

What does this mean? The world is too busy criticizing Israel over Operation Cast Lead to notice the true cause of war in the Middle East. It is not the small country trying to protect itself from terrorism, it is the terrorist group in Southern Lebanon and the terrorist group that violently took over the Gaza Strip that is causing the violence.

US Intelligence: Hezbollah Arming for War With Israel is a post from: The Israel Situation

Is Syria Getting Serious?

Anthony Reich — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:57:32 +0000

The past week has contained a number of announcements which are significant to politics in the Middle East. While these events were all reported in the international press, they seem to have been downplayed for reasons that are not easy to explain. Perhaps the Copenhagen summit was stealing all the main headlines, or maybe the announcements were timed in such a way so as not to attract too much attention.

The first event was on Sunday when it was announced that Israel would withdraw from the northern part of the village of Ghajar. The on and off Israeli presence in northern Ghajar has been cited as an obstacle to peace between Israel and its neighbours for many years. Ghajar was captured by Israel in 1967. Ghajar’s residents were Syrian and members of the minority Alawite sect which is also the sect to which the ruling Assad family belongs. In 1981, the Golan Heights was formally annexed by the Israeli Knesset and many of the village’s residents accepted Israeli citizenship. In 2000 when the UN demarcated the border, the border line split the village in two with the northern half of Ghajar allocated to Lebanese control while the southern half remained with Israel. In the 2006 Lebanon War, Israel recaptured the northern part of Ghajar thereby reuniting the village. In terms of the UN resolution that ended the war, Israel is obliged to withdraw from northern Ghajar.

Ghajar, together with nearby Shaba Farms, is claimed by the Lebanese government to form part of Lebanese sovereign territory. This is despite the fact that this area was clearly captured from Syria during the Six Day War. Although it seems illogical to divide the village again and the residents of the village have been protesting against an Israeli withdrawal, such an action on Israel’s part would clearly be seen as a concession to its Arab neighbours. Unilateral actions, while they do sometimes happen, are highly unusual in the Middle East. They are more often than not part of orchestrated actions which make up some sort of deal or agreement.

It was only one day later, on Monday, that prime minister Netanyahu announced to the Knesset that Syria has agreed to give up its pre-condition to resuming peace talks with Israel. Up to now, Syria has always demanded that Israel agrees to give up the Golan Heights before it was prepared to enter into peace talks. This pre-condition has been relinquished, and this seemingly paves the way for peace talks to resume. The avenue for this message has been a party that has not previously been involved in the Israel-Syria peace track. It was French president Nicolas Sarkozy who advised PM Netanyahu of the change to the Syrian position. Previous peace discussions, which were reported to have progressed particularly in 2000 and 2006, were facilitated by the Americans or the Turks. It was reported that the previous negotiations secured Israel all water rights to the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), and also agreed on the security arrangements for both countries via an early warning system in the Golan. In addition, it was proposed that most of the Golan Heights would be a “peace park” open to visitors from both Syria and Israel.

For the Israelis, the above-mentioned arrangements might well be enough to exchange for a peace agreement. The Syrians have a more complex issue to address – that of national pride. The Syrian pride was severely dented in 1967 when Israel captured the Golan Heights. In particular, President Hafez El-Assad suffered a public relations catastrophe. Being of the minority Alawite sect, Assad was ever conscious of the need to keep the Sunni majority happy and in support of the presidential family. Until his dying day, Assad promised the people of Syria that the Golan would be returned to them. His son, President Bashar El-Assad has inherited the challenge of bringing back the Golan, although he seems to have been less forceful about promising this to his people.

The next significant event occurred two days later on Wednesday. A law was passed very quickly through the Knesset requiring that a national referendum be held before the government can agree to cede any territory as part of a peace treaty. This effectively means that Netanyahu may come to an agreement with Assad regarding the Golan, but it will not be binding unless approved by a national referendum. I believe that this is a tremendously smart move on Netanyahu’s part. Firstly, he can never be accused of acting against the will of the people in giving up the Golan. Such a move will only be allowed if approved in the referendum. Secondly, he will undoubtedly use the referendum in all negotiations with the Syrians in an attempt to extract more from such a deal. One can almost hear him saying that he requires a more attractive deal from the Syrians in order to be able to pass the deal through a national referendum. The referendum will act as a safety net to save Bibi any responsibility if a deal goes wrong. After all, it will have been approved by the Israeli people.

Israel’s biggest problem with Syria these days has little to do with the Golan Heights. Rather, it is the ongoing Syrian support for Hamas and Hezbollah. These two organisations are waging constant war on Israel’s northern border and on its border with Gaza. If Syria was to agree to cease its support for these two terror organisations, there is no doubt that Israel’s safety would be significantly enhanced, and such an agreement would be worth a great deal to Israel.

It is difficult to judge whether Syria is more serious about peace this time, although we certainly hope that this is the case. Perhaps Bashar Assad feels less responsible for the loss of the Golan, therefore less obliged to return it to Syria in the way that his father felt. Assad junior, however, has continued to support the terror organisations mentioned above and even increased his support for them. Any possibility of getting him to step away from this support and to distance himself from the terror regime in Iran would be worthy of serious consideration by the Israeli public in a referendum.

In the meantime, the three seemingly unrelated events seem very closely connected to me. In a region where there is nothing for nothing, I have to conclude that these steps are cogs in the machinery that may progress the Syrian peace track. I certainly hope so.

Is Syria Getting Serious? is a post from: The Israel Situation

Israelis Capture Iranian Weapons in the Med

Eric — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:07:42 +0000

The Israeli Navy boarded a German ship based in Cyprus headed to Syria from Iran that contained 500 tons of weapons. The weapons, likely destined to Hezbollah officials, filled 40 of the 300 shipping containers on the Francop, flying the Antigua flag.

“In a random check of the containers we found a variety of weaponry camouflaged as civilian goods,” Gen. Ben Yehuda said. “Clearly these weapons are for terror purposes. There is no doubt they came from Iran, and were headed through Syria to Hezbollah.”

Hezbollah officials in Beirut refused to comment on the Israeli allegations. A spokesman for the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York also had no comment. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moalim called the Israeli commandos “pirates” and denied the ship was carrying weapons in televised comments made during a visit to Tehran on Tuesday.

Clearly the Mossad is doing its job, as the weapons stopped before getting into terrorist hands. However, the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis is very dangerous for Israel and is well equiped for another Lebanon-Israel war.

Read the whole story at the Wall Street Journal.

Israelis Capture Iranian Weapons in the Med is a post from: The Israel Situation

Hezbollah More Dangerous to Lebanon Than Israel

Eric — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:37:02 +0000

A Hezbollah leader’s home exploded in Tayr Filsi in Southern Lebanon killing five, including the terrorist leader and his son. This is further evidence that Hezbollah is re-stocking weapons in civilian areas around Lebanon. These are the people Jimmy Carter calls partners for peace.

President Shimon Peres spoke about the event, stating that Hezbollah is more of a safety threat to the Lebanese people than Israel. From the NY Times:

A cache of munitions exploded in the house of a local Hezbollah official in southern Lebanon on Monday, producing conflicting reports of casualties. Security officials said the blast in the village of Tayr Filsi, on the southern bank of the Litani River, killed five people, including the Hezbollah official and his son. A Hezbollah spokesman denied that anyone had been killed and said the reason for the explosion was under investigation. Israel said the blast showed that munitions were being stockpiled in violation of the truce that ended a war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006.

Hezbollah More Dangerous to Lebanon Than Israel is a post from: The Israel Situation

Israel Will Hold Lebanon Accountable for Hezbollah Attacks

Eric — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:10:00 +0000

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he does not consider Lebanon a current enemy, but will hold any future government coalition that includes Hezbolah accountable for any attack from Lebanese soil.

If you ask me, rightfully so. Just like any attack from Gaza is the responsibility of Hamas and any attack from Ramallah or Jenin is the responsibility of the PA, Lebanon should be responsible for controlling its citizens.

Lebanon’s Prime Minister is holding talks with Hezbollah leaders about including them in a future government. That would be a big mistake for Lebanon. Unlike the Olmert government, Netanyahu will hold nothing back in a future war with Hezbollah.

Israel Will Hold Lebanon Accountable for Hezbollah Attacks is a post from: The Israel Situation

IDF Rolls Out Anti-Anti-Tank Defense System

Eric — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:55:00 +0000

The IDF has officially given a green light for a missile system designed to stop anti-tank missiles. The technology has been in rapid development since the end of the 2006 Lebanon war.

During the Lebanon war, Hezbollah demonstrated a new ability to fire two consecutive rockets at a tank with the needed accuracy and power to destroy the tank. This was a rare occurrence, but if the technology is there Israel will find a way to beat it.

The new Israeli technology is a tank mounted anti-missile system. The system will automatically detect incoming fire, lock on, target, fire on, and destroy the incoming rocket or missile. That all happens without human attention.

The military is now starting to equip tanks with the anti-anti-tank systems. Successful tests this week had 100% success on stopping incoming fire.

IDF Rolls Out Anti-Anti-Tank Defense System is a post from: The Israel Situation