Since its inception in 1978, UNIFIL has cost the United Nations billions of dollars. Result: Zero. Nothing. For 45 years, nothing has changed in the configuration of south Lebanon. But hundreds of UNIFIL soldiers have been killed, sometimes in the crossfire, sometimes by attacks from within Lebanon by Palestinian and Hezbollah militants. The latest was the shooting by Hezbollah operatives on a UNIFIL convoy last December 2022, killing Private Sean Rooney of the Irish contingent.
The pattern of hostilities itself has not changed since the late 1960s: Someone (out of the Lebanese government's sovereign control of its territory) fires a useless rocket or shell on Israel's northern settlements - initially Palestinian militants, then Hezbollah militants - and Israel retaliates. Over the decades, the retaliations ranged from minor shelling of uninhabited areas (like yesterday) to targeted attacks against Palestinian refugee camps, to major destruction of entire villages in the south or to large sections of Beirut itself.
Thus, one can reasonably conclude that the presence of UNIFIL has never prevented any war or cross border attacks. In fact, by freezing the unlawful presence of non-state actors like the PLO or the PFLP or Hezbollah or Hamas into so-called ceasefire agreements or "rules of engagement" understandings, UNIFIL has granted legitimacy to outlaw and terrorist organizations. The UN's job is not simply to prevent escalations (which it never did anyway); the UN should prioritize the return of sovereignty for the country or government in question. And that has never been UNIFIL's priority. In the case of Lebanon, UN resolutions should first and foremost stipulate the requirement for a return of Lebanese state sovereignty AND include a mandatory military mechanism to enforce such a provision. To date, the Lebanese Army has never been allowed, since the late 1960s, to be the SOLE custodian of the Lebanese south, and every UN resolution called for a return of sovereignty but without any enforcement mechanism. As if the Security Council NEVER wanted Lebanon to recover its full sovereignty over the south.
Despite grandiose but humble declarations and statements, UNIFIL doesn't really control the territory it was mandated to control, hence anyone can get in their pickup truck and fire a few rockets across the border. According to UNSCR 1701, the area south of the Litani river was supposed to be free of militias and militant organizations. That has never been implemented. Why? Because 1701 did not include an enforcement mechanism, such that UNIFIL forces have no way to prevent violations of 1701. Hezbollah, Hamas, PFLP and others run freely across the south, shooting rockets on Israel and giving the latter every pretext to retaliate.
The 1989 US-Saudi sponsored Taef agreement denied the Lebanese army full and exclusive control of the south, thus indirectly giving Hezbollah (backed by the Syrian occupation) free rein in its unlawful activities in the south, under the pretext of "resistance". But the Lebanese army was granted control over access and traffic in and out of the Palestinian refugee camps. Today, there are Lebanese army checkpoints at the entry of every Palestinian refugee camp. So how can Hamas, normally present inside the camps, exit the camps with dozens of rockets mounted on vehicles, and head to the Israeli-Lebanese border without anyone (Lebanese army, UNIFIL, Hezbollah) noticing?
Incidentally, the Gaza Prime Minister, Ismail Haniyeh, was visiting Beirut - supposedly on a private visit - the day the rockets were fired on Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are both under Iran's control, and Hezbollah brags about coordinating the "resistance" with Hamas. So how can pundits say that Hezbollah has nothing to do with the firing of rockets on Israel? It is more than likely that the firing of rockets yesterday by Hamas operatives from Lebanese soil was coordinated with Hezbollah which controls the entire area from which the rockets were fired.
Finally, assuming Hezbollah had nothing to do with the incidents, isn't Hezbollah's eternal "resistance" posture supposed to defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression? Where was the resistance to Israel's retaliation yesterday?
Why is it that the Lebanese government no longer has sovereignty over its south? How can the multitude of United Nations Security Council resolutions issued over more than the past 50 years not include an enforcement mechanism for a return of Lebanese sovereignty over the south?
No comments:
Post a Comment