“The Kingdom renews its condemnation and categorical rejection of the genocide committed by Israel against the brotherly Palestinian people,” Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman said at an Arab Islamic summit, echoing comments by Saudi Foreign Minister, Faisal Bin Farhan Al Saud, late last month.

He urged the international community to stop Israel from attacking Iran and to respect Iran’s sovereignty.

The Crown Prince said in September the Kingdom would not recognise Israel unless a Palestinian State was created.

US President Joe Biden’s administration had sought to broker a normalisation accord between Saudi Arabia and Israel that would have included US security guarantees for the Kingdom, among other bilateral deals between Washington and Riyadh.

Those normalisation efforts were put on ice after the 7 October, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas fighters from Gaza and Israel’s subsequent retaliation.

Israel’s military assault on Gaza in the last 13 months has killed tens of thousands, displaced nearly its entire population, caused a hunger crisis and led to allegations of genocide at the World Court, which Israel denies.

Via Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

—-

Related video added by Informed Comment:

Al Jazeera English: “Saudi Crown Prince demands Gaza, Lebanon ceasefire”

As of October 25, Israeli attacks have killed at least 163 health and rescue workers across Lebanon over the past year and damaged 158 ambulances and 55 hospitals, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health. The Israeli military should immediately halt unlawful attacks on medical workers and healthcare facilities, and Israel’s allies should suspend the transfer of arms to Israel given the real risk that they will be used to commit grave abuses.

“The Israeli military’s unlawful attacks on medical workers and hospitals are devastating Lebanon’s already frail health care system and putting medical workers at grave risk,” said Ramzi Kaiss, Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Strikes on medical workers and healthcare facilities also compound risks to injured civilians, severely hindering their ability to receive urgently needed medical attention.”

The United Nations should urgently establish, and UN member countries should support, an international investigation into the recent hostilities in Lebanon and northern Israel, and ensure that it is dispatched immediately to gather information and make findings as to violations of international law and recommendations for accountability.

Human Rights Watch interviewed eight people, including paramedics, civil defense, and hospital officials, and visited the site of the attack on the Islamic Health Committee’s civil defense center, where it additionally interviewed three residents and witnesses to the attack. Human Rights Watch also analyzed photographs, videos, and satellite imagery of the attacks. Human Rights Watch sent a letter outlining its findings and posing questions to the Israeli military on October 7 but has not received a response. On October 21, Human Rights Watch sent a letter outlining its research findings and posing questions to the Islamic Health Committee, which responded on October 23.

An overnight Israeli strike on October 3 struck a civil defense center in the Bashoura neighborhood of central Beirut, killing seven paramedics. The center belonged to the Islamic Health Committee, a civil defense and ambulance organization affiliated with Hezbollah. In Lebanon, the civil defense is a civilian force whose duties include providing emergency medical and rescue services and assisting with the evacuation of the civilian population. On October 4, the Israeli military struck an Islamic Health Committee ambulance near the entrance of Marjayoun Hospital in southern Lebanon, killing seven other paramedics and forcing the hospital to evacuate its staff and shut down. That same day, the Israeli military struck Salah Ghandour Hospital in the southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil, around two and a half hours after issuing an evacuation warning by phone to local officials.

The Israeli government has accused Hezbollah of using ambulances to transport fighters and hospitals to hide weapons and equipment. Human Rights Watch did not find any evidence indicating use of these three facilities for military purposes at the time of the attacks that would justify depriving them of their protected status under international humanitarian law.

In the absence of military justification for the attacks on the facilities, the attacks are unlawful. Such attacks directed against medical facilities, if carried out with criminal intent—that is, intentionally or recklessly—would be war crimes.

Membership or affiliation with Hezbollah, or other political movements with armed wings, is not a sufficient basis for determining an individual to be a lawful military target. Guidance by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) sets out that people who have exclusively non-combat functions in armed groups, including political or administrative roles, or are merely members of or affiliated with political entities that have an armed component, such as Hezbollah, may not be targeted at any time unless and only for such time as they, like any other civilian, directly participate in the hostilities. Medical personnel affiliated with Hezbollah, including those assigned to civil defense organizations, are protected under the laws of war.

On October 21, a strike near Rafik Hariri University Hospital reportedly killed 18 people, including 4 children, and damaged the hospital.

Under the laws of war, doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other health and medical personnel must be permitted to do their work and be protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection only if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, “acts harmful to the enemy.”

Likewise, ambulances and other medical transportation must be allowed to function and be protected in all circumstances. They could lose their protection only if they are being used to commit “acts harmful to the enemy,” such as transporting ammunition or healthy fighters in service. The attacking force must issue a warning to cease this misuse and can only attack after such a warning goes unheeded.

Under international humanitarian law, all parties to the conflict are under a duty, at all times, to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to target only combatants. Individuals who commit serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent—that is, intentionally or recklessly—may be prosecuted for war crimes. Individuals may also be held criminally liable for assisting in, facilitating, aiding, or abetting a war crime. All governments that are parties to an armed conflict are obligated to investigate alleged war crimes by members of their armed forces.

In November 2023, Human Rights Watch called for investigations into the Israeli military’s repeated, apparently indiscriminate attacks on medical facilities in Gaza. Human Rights Watch has called on Israel’s key allies to suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel, given the real risk that they will be used to commit grave abuses.

“With more than a hundred health workers killed, Israeli strikes in Lebanon are putting civilians, including medical workers, at grave risk of harm,” Kaiss said. “Medical workers should be protected, and countries should take action to prevent further atrocities, including by suspending arms sales and military assistance to Israel.”

As of October 28, 2024, Israeli attacks in Lebanon have killed at least 2,710 people and injured more than 12,592 people since October 2023, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health.

As of October 25, the Ministry of Public Health said Israeli strikes in Lebanon had damaged 51 emergency medical centers and facilities tied to various governmental and nongovernmental health organizations, including the Lebanese Red Cross, the General Directorate of the Lebanese Civil Defense, the Amel Association International, the Islamic Risala Scout Association, the Islamic Health Committee, and the Lebanese Succour Association. The ministry stated that the attacks had damaged a total of 158 ambulances belonging to these groups and that 55 hospitals were damaged in strikes that killed 12 people and injured 60, as of October 25. On October 25, the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon said that, since October 2023, “27 attacks targeted ambulances used by first responders.”

On October 3, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) director general said that 28 on-duty medics were killed in Lebanon in the span of 24 hours. The WHO warned on October 8 about disease outbreaks in Lebanon following the partial or full closure of at least nine hospitals in addition to crowded conditions in shelters for displaced persons. On October 8, an official with the Islamic Health Committee told Human Rights Watch that Israeli strikes had killed 60 of the committee’s paramedics since the escalation of hostilities in mid-September. 

Human Rights Watch did not independently verify the circumstances of each of these cases.

Since October 2023, Hezbollah has launched thousands of rockets and missiles into towns in northern Israel, killing at least 16 civilians. In July, 12 children were killed in an attack on the town of Majdal Shams, in the occupied Golan Heights. Israeli and United States officials said that Hezbollah was responsible for the attack, which the group denies.

The Israeli military has repeatedly claimed that Hezbollah is using civilian infrastructure for military purposes. In a speech before the UN General Assembly on September 27, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Hezbollah of hiding rockets and missiles in hospitals. In March, Israel’s Arabic-language military spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, accused Hezbollah and the Lebanese Amal Movement of using ambulances “for terrorist purposes,” including to transport personnel and combat equipment. In October, the spokesperson reiterated these claims in a post to his X account, warned medical crews to stay away from Hezbollah members, and called on them not to cooperate with the group. He did not distinguish between Hezbollah combatants and other civilian members of the group’s institutions or political office. He said that “any vehicle proven to have an armed saboteur using it for terrorist purposes, regardless of its type, will have appropriate measures taken against it to prevent its military use.”

The claims made by the Israeli military spokesperson are contested. Human Rights Watch has not been able to corroborate them.

Methodology

Human Rights Watch spoke to members of the Islamic Health Committee; the Islamic Risala Scout Association, a civil defense and ambulance organization affiliated with the Amal Movement, a Lebanese political party and Hezbollah ally; and officials at Mays al-Jabal Hospital, Marjayoun Hospital, and Salah Ghandour Hospital in southern Lebanon.

Human Rights Watch also spoke with three officials from the General Directorate of the Lebanese Civil Defense and reviewed statements provided by the Islamic Health Committee and the Islamic Risala Scout Association pertaining to attacks on their centers and crews.

On October 3, Human Rights Watch visited the site of the attack on the Islamic Health Committee’s civil defense center and interviewed residents and witnesses to the attack. On October 7, Human Rights Watch interviewed an individual who operated an art studio in the same building as the civil defense center in Beirut.

One paramedic with the Lebanese Civil Defense, whom Human Rights Watch interviewed, was subsequently killed in an Israeli strike on a civil defense center in the southern Lebanese town of Dardghaya on October 9.

Human Rights Watch analyzed 57 photographs and videos posted on social media platforms or shared directly with researchers. The images were taken in Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the Bekaa governorate. Human Rights Watch analyzed satellite imagery from Salah Ghandour Hospital and Marjayoun Hospital recorded before and after the attacks. Human Rights Watch visited the site of the strike on the civil defense center in Beirut but did not visit the sites of the strikes at the hospitals in southern Lebanon.

Strike on the Islamic Health Committee Civil Defense Center

Shortly after midnight, on October 3, an Israeli strike hit the Islamic Health Committee’s civil defense center in central Beirut, on the second floor of a residential building. A statement published that day by the committee said that the strike killed seven paramedics. Those victims, according to the committee, included two volunteer paramedics, the head of the committee’s civil defense in Beirut, the head of operations in Beirut, the head of equipment in the Beirut area, the head of machinery and maintenance, and the head of rescue work.

The Ministry of Public Health said that the attack killed nine people and that DNA tests on recovered body parts are ongoing to verify the identity of the remaining unidentified victims. Two witnesses said that among the victims were bystanders who were near the building at the time of the strike.

On the October 3 visit to the site, Human Rights Watch observed damage indicating that at least two munitions detonated in rooms containing the Islamic Health Committee’s offices and blast damage on the floors above and below. Researchers also observed primary and secondary fragmentation damage on adjoining and adjacent apartment buildings, businesses, and al-Bashoura Islamic Cemetery, across the street.

The Islamic Health Committee’s civil defense director general said in a statement provided to Human Rights Watch that the center has 13 employees and 45 volunteers, who provided rescue and first aid services to residents and displaced people from the south and the southern suburbs of Beirut.

One neighborhood resident, who was at his shop at the time of the attack, said he immediately rushed to the building after the strike to help those injured. He said he saw three lifeless bodies, including one that was severely mutilated. “Everybody knows it’s a medical center,” he said. “They help everyone here.”

Mahmoud Karaki, an Islamic Health Committee spokesperson, said that the paramedics at the center at the time of the strike had gone there to rest after a day of rescue work in Beirut’s southern suburbs, after a series of Israeli strikes overnight.

“All of the people who were in the office were paramedics,” Karaki said. “Some were managers, but all are paramedics.” He said the center was established in the Bashoura neighborhood since 2009.

Human Rights Watch reviewed two images circulating on social media that showed one paramedic killed in the strike, Wissam Mahmoud Salhab, in military clothes on martyr posters that are highly similar to those issued by Hezbollah’s military wing, in addition to a video of Salhab firing an assault rifle. Another photo reviewed by Human Rights Watch showed another paramedic killed in the strike, Sajid Shirri, in military clothes donning a Hezbollah patch.

“Hospital,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / PS Express / Crop2Comic, 2024.

Human Rights Watch noticed discrepancies in the martyr posters, including the use of two separate photos, ranks and pseudonyms for the same person. The same camouflage and scarf used in Sahlab’s posters were found on other apparent martyrs’ posters circulating online. In its response to a letter from Human Rights Watch, the Islamic Health Committee denied that the martyr posters for Salhab were issued by Hezbollah’s military wing, and said instead that “such posters, often are designed by family members and friends of those killed who consider photos in military clothes post-martyrdom to be a source of pride.”

Human Rights Watch could not verify the source of the martyr posters. The statement said that Hezbollah’s military wing did not issue those posters on its Telegram channel, which Human Rights Watch confirmed, and said that Salhab had worked for more than 10 years as the head of emergency operations and logistics at the civil defense center in Beirut. The Islamic Health Committee also said that Shirri was “never a member of Hezbollah’s military wing and has never held a role in that regard … and his work was limited to health, rescue and emergency services.” It said that the military clothes worn by Shirri in the circulated photos could have belonged to his relatives or have been bought from a store, and that such military clothes do not necessarily belong to Hezbollah. Human Rights Watch could not verify this claim.

The Islamic Health Committee further said that none of the paramedics killed in the Bashoura strike and the strike on a group of paramedics near Marjayoun Hospital had held a combat function or mission in the military wing of Hezbollah since joining the committee. It denied that the committee has any ties to military operations and stated that there is a “complete separation between the military wing [of Hezbollah] and the social services wing.”

Maria Hibri, an artist who owns a workshop on the ground floor of the same building said that the building was made up of three blocks, with 27 families living in each block, and that the targeted floor was solely occupied by the civil defense center. “There was no evacuation warning given to anyone in the building,” she said. “Why? They would have left. Nobody wanted to die.”

Strikes on Ambulance Near Marjayoun Hospital

In an October 4 statement, the Islamic Health Committee said that seven of the group’s paramedics had been killed “in a direct attack on the ambulance crew at Marjayoun Hospital.”

Shoshan Hassan Mazraani, the emergency room head nurse at the hospital, said she witnessed the strike while she was drinking coffee outside the entrance of the hospital’s emergency room. She said that the strike was “directly on the ambulances,” three of which were on the road leading to the hospital’s entrance at the time of the attack.

“I ran to the ambulances and told people that they hit the paramedics,” she said. “Once I got to the road I couldn’t continue. Staff at the hospital were saying don’t go near the ambulances, they might strike again. And the injured paramedics were calling out for me to help them.”

Mazraani, who is usually responsible for providing death tolls from the hospital to the Ministry of Public Health, said that seven paramedics were killed and five were injured.

“These guys, we knew them,” she said. “For a year they were bringing injured people to the hospital. We became familiar with them. They are paramedics, just like any other ambulance crew.”

In statements to the media on October 4, the Marjayoun Hospital director, Dr. Moanes Kalakish, said that the hospital’s main entrance “was targeted as paramedics were approaching” and that the hospital was not warned before the attack. Mazraani also said that neither she nor other hospital staff received evacuation warnings.

The hospital was evacuated and shut down after the strike that day, news reports and Mazraani said. One photograph taken on October 4 and geolocated by Human Rights Watch to approximately 150 meters from the hospital shows a burned ambulance and a truck on fire under a burned palm tree. Human Rights Watch analyzed satellite imagery from October 11 of the area around Marjayoun Hospital showing the burned vehicles.

Human Rights Watch also analyzed one video and two photographs uploaded to X on October 11, showing a large crater blocking one of the main roads into Marjayoun Hospital.

Israeli strikes on roads leading to the hospital hindered hospital staff from returning to their homes, Mazraani said. For 12 days before the hospital shut down, hospital workers had been sleeping there, according to Mazraani.

“There was a lot of danger, and we knew that if we left, we won’t be able to go back to the hospital,” she said.

The Israeli military did not publicly provide any evidence that Marjayoun Hospital or the ambulances targeted near the entrance were being used to carry out hostile acts.

Strike on Salah Ghandour Hospital

The head of Salah Ghandour Hospital in Bint Jbeil, Dr. Mohammed Suleiman, said that the hospital was struck on October 4, two-and-a-half hours after they received an evacuation warning. Suleiman said that a local official in Bint Jbeil received a call, reportedly from an Israeli military official, at around 6 p.m. on October 4 informing him that the paramedics around the hospital should be evacuated within four hours as the hospital could be struck.

“We deemed that this warning did not concern the medical staff of the hospital, so we evacuated the paramedics and the area around the hospitals, but the staff stayed,” Suleiman said. “But we were surprised that 2.5 hours later … a strike took place at 8:30 pm before the end of the [four hour] warning period. The hospital was struck three times. One shell struck the on-call room and two shells struck the paramedics’ waiting room, [both] inside the hospital.”

Nine hospital workers were injured, including doctors and medical workers, three of whom are in critical condition, Suleiman said.

Lebanese media reported that after the attack, the Israeli military did not respond to requests from UNIFIL, the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, to allow a Lebanese Red Cross and Lebanese Army convoy to approach the hospital and help evacuate people. Suleiman said that the hospital staff were forced to evacuate injured people in their own cars.

On October 5, the Israeli military said that an Israeli Air Force aircraft attacked “Hezbollah terrorists who were operating within a command center that was located inside a mosque adjacent to the Salah Ghandour Hospital.” The military said that Hezbollah used the command center “to plan and execute terrorist attacks against IDF troops and the State of Israel,” referring to the Israeli military; and that “notices were sent to residents and conversations were held with significant parties” in villages with hospitals being used “in defiance of the laws of armed conflict.” The military said that it demanded that “any military activity carried out from the hospitals should stop immediately,” but did not give further details of what ‘terrorist activity’ took place from the Salah Ghandour Hospital.

Suleiman said that the military first struck the hospital from the side that is furthest away from the mosque, before striking the mosque afterwards. In the warning to the village, Suleiman said, no mention was made of the mosque or of its use by Hezbollah.

The Israeli military did not provide public evidence that either the hospital or the mosque were being used to commit hostile acts.

Human Rights Watch geolocated a photograph and a video posted to social media the day after the attack and received from a contact, showing the destroyed mosque adjacent to the hospital.

Low-resolution satellite imagery recorded on the morning of October 4 shows no signs of damage in Salah Ghandour Hospital, but an image collected 24 hours later, in the morning of October 5, confirms the site was struck.

A very high-resolution satellite image from October 11, analyzed by Human Rights Watch, shows the mosque completely destroyed, and heavy damage to the hospital’s northwestern side, facing the mosque, and smaller damage to the hospital rooftop on the opposite northeastern side.

Healthcare facilities are civilian objects that have special protections under the laws of war against attacks and other acts of violence, including bombing, shelling, looting, forced entry, shooting into, encircling, or other forceful interference such as intentionally depriving facilities of electricity and water. Healthcare facilities only lose their protection from attack if they are being used to commit “acts harmful to the enemy,” and after a required warning.

According to the ICRC, “prior to an attack against a medical unit which is being used to commit acts harmful to the enemy, a warning has to be issued setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time limit and that an attack can only take place after such warning has remained unheeded.”

Other Strikes on Health Centers, Medical Workers 

Human Rights Watch identified at least two other attacks, in the southern Lebanese towns of Sohmor and Kafra, that significantly damaged healthcare centers and vehicles and killed medical personnel.

On September 29, six members of the Islamic Health Committee were killed in Sohmor, in the Bekaa governorate, the Ministry of Public Health said. Videos taken from the site of the strike, posted on social media on September 30 and analyzed by Human Rights Watch, show a damaged civil defense car and two damaged ambulances with the logos of the committee, as well as a burning vehicle. Human Rights Watch geolocated the site of the strike to a building in the northeastern part of Sohmor but could not determine whether there were military targets present at the site.

The civil defense commissioner for the Islamic Risala Scout Association, Rabih Issa, said that a separate strike on September 30 hit a group of paramedics when they were changing shifts at one of the group’s assembly points in Kafra, in the Nabatieh governorate, damaging three ambulances belonging to the association and injuring several paramedics. Human Rights Watch analyzed two videos received from a contact and posted on social media on September 30 and geolocated them to the main road in Kafra. The videos show one destroyed ambulance in addition to two burned vehicles on a damaged road.

Evacuation Warnings to Medical and Civil Defense Centers

On September 30, Issa told Human Rights Watch that two other civil defense centers belonging to the Islamic Risala Scout Association in southern Lebanon received a phone call from the Israeli military the previous week ordering them to evacuate the centers within two hours. It is unclear whether the two centers were subsequently hit.

The head of the Lebanese Civil Defense Force in Tyre, Abdullah Moussawi, also told Human Rights Watch on September 30 that two civil defense centers in southern Lebanon received a phone call from the Israeli military ordering staff to evacuate their centers. He said that the centers were not attacked despite the evacuation warnings.

Moussawi and four other paramedics were killed in a strike “that targeted the civil defense center” in Dardghaya, near the southern Lebanese city of Tyre, on October 9, according to the General Directorate of the Lebanese Civil Defense.

The director of medical supplies at the Mays al-Jabal Hospital, Dr. Halim Saad, said that the hospital also received an evacuation warning on October 4 from the Israeli military, instructing the staff to leave immediately. Saad said that the attacks in the surrounding area since October 2023 had damaged the hospital. The hospital shut its doors on October 4 and evacuated its staff after the Israeli military reportedly ordered its evacuation.

It remained unclear whether Mays al-Jabal Hospital was directly attacked after the Israeli military’s evacuation warning.

Human Rights Watch analyzed and geolocated seven photographs and one video provided by Saad that showed damage consistent with kinetic damage to the hospital’s facade, entrance doors, and windows facing south, as well as a remnant of an artillery-fired smoke projectile in the hospital’s yard. Saad said that the hospital depended on UNIFIL to deliver needed supplies, such as water, fuel, and medical supplies, but had been unable to receive supplies in the week before it closed.

“The strikes that have happened on and near the hospital since last year, in addition to the evacuation warnings we received and the inability to get medical supplies, water, and fuel to the hospital forced us to close our doors,” Saad said.

Customary international law prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population.” Statements that call for evacuating areas that are primarily intended to cause panic among residents would fall under this prohibition. Civilians, including medical workers, who do not evacuate following warnings are still fully protected by international humanitarian law.

Via Human Rights Watch

( Foreign Policy in Focus ) – It took nearly a year for French President Emmanuel Macron to confront the uncomfortable truth: the path to peace in Gaza cannot be paved with more weapons to Israel. His recent remarks, sharp and unapologetic, reflected the urgency of shifting away from military escalation. “I think that today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering weapons to fight in Gaza,” Macron declared, laying bare his stance. He was unequivocal in his message, adding, “If you call for a ceasefire, it’s only consistent that you do not supply weapons of war.”

Although Macron clarified that France does not supply Israel with offensive arms, his pointed comments seemed aimed at the United States, which remains Israel’s primary arms provider. Washington and other European countries, despite acknowledging that these weapons have been used against civilians, continues to send shipments, fueling a conflict in Gaza that has already claimed more than 42,000 lives. Macron’s statement contributes to an ongoing shift in Europe’s approach that challenges the long-standing, uncritical support for Israel’s military actions.

Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, visibly agitated by Macron’s remarks, fired back with a familiar rhetoric of defense, invoking Israel’s right to self-protection. “As Israel fights the forces of barbarism led by Iran, all civilized nations should stand by us,” Netanyahu declared, calling Macron’s stance “a disgrace.” In a video addressed directly to the French president, Netanyahu doubled down, stating, “Israel will win with or without their support. But their shame will linger long after this war is over.”

His remarks underscore the widening rift between Israel and some of its traditional Western allies as the conflict escalates. Yet, the undercurrent of this diplomatic quarrel suggests something far more significant than a routine policy disagreement. Macron’s hesitation to unconditionally support Israel—despite the West’s long-standing alignment with its security needs—indicates a growing recognition among European leaders that Israel’s operations have surpassed legitimate self-defense and entered the realm of excessive, unchecked aggression.

As the violence grinds on, Macron’s call for a political solution reflects an emerging European discomfort with the status quo. The question now is whether Macron’s bluntness will push other leaders, especially in the United States and Germany, to reconsider their own complicity in fueling this relentless cycle of violence. For years, European nations have trod lightly around Israel’s military actions, particularly in its volatile engagements with Palestinian territories. But more European capitals are now witnessing massive protests against Israel, indicating increasingly discomfort in Europe with Netanyahu’s expansionist approach to the conflict, which is designed to shore up his domestic political survival rather than achieve long-term security.

“J’accuse,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Netanyahu’s heated response to Macron is particularly notable for its timing: October 7. The anniversary of the devastating violence that ignited yet another round of suffering for both Israelis and Palestinians should be a day of solemn reflection, yet Netanyahu has used it to double down on his military offensives on all sides of Israeli borders. Instead of working toward a resolution, his government has opted for broader assaults, widening the conflict, and targeting civilian infrastructure in a way that has drawn mounting international condemnation.

At the heart of Netanyahu’s strategy lies a grim reality: his political survival hinges on perpetuating conflict. Under intense scrutiny for his domestic failures and facing an increasingly fractured political landscape at home, Netanyahu has leaned into a hawkish narrative to rally support from his far-right base. By stoking fear and framing Israel as under siege, Netanyahu has stifled criticism from within his own country while marginalizing voices calling for a peaceful resolution.

Netanyahu’s war is not about elections or the protection of Israeli citizens. It is about staying in power. Expanding the conflict offers him a chance to maintain his political grip, even as international sentiment shifts uneasily away from unconditional support for Israel. Netanyahu’s actions have raised serious concerns about war crimes, particularly in light of Israel’s reported strikes on civilian areas and humanitarian corridors. Although Israel claims its right to target Hamas militants, the disproportionate toll on Palestinian civilians has been impossible to ignore. Hospitals, schools, and densely populated neighborhoods have been devastated, with little regard for international law or the principles of proportionality.

European nations, including France, have historically turned a blind eye to such violations, framing them as unfortunate but necessary casualties of war. But as the conflict drags on, Macron’s diplomatic distancing could mark the beginning of a broader shift in Europe’s stance toward Israel’s military campaigns. As the death toll rises in Gaza, West Bank and Lebanon and the international community grows more aware of the scale of the destruction, Netanyahu’s gamble may yet backfire. His attempt to expand the conflict for personal gain could result in the very political isolation he is desperate to avoid.

Foreign Policy in Focus

(The Conversation) – The United Nations security council has expressed strong concern for the safety of peacekeepers in Lebanon after a series of incidents over the past week in which UN positions have come under fire from the Israel Defense Forces as they continue their push in the south of the country.

“UN peacekeepers and UN premises must never be the target of an attack,” the security council said on October 14 in a statement adopted by consensus of the 15-member council. It urged all parties to respect the security and safety of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) operating in south Lebanon.

In recent days, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have struck the Unifil on several occasions, damaging cameras, shooting directly at peacekeepers and, on October 13, two Israeli tanks entered a UN compound for 45 minutes and set off smoke bombs.

The same day Israel requested that Unifil withdraw five kilometres back from the blue line which constitutes the de facto border between Israel and Lebanon, to keep them “out of harm’s way”.

On each occasion, the IDF has either claimed it was acting in self-defence against Hezbollah or that its actions were accidental. These explanations have failed to convince the rest of the world.

The US, several European countries and the EU have all stated that UN peacekeepers must not be harmed. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, contends these attacks may constitute war crimes and are a breach of both international law and international humanitarian law.

The world is watching the US election campaign unfolding. Sign up to join us at a special Conversation event on October 17. Expert panellists will discuss with the audience the upcoming election and its possible fallout.

Since 1978, Unifil has lost 337 peacekeepers, making Lebanon the most costly, in human terms, of all the UN peacekeeping operations. But despite these risks it has remained in post. Throughout Unifil’s deployment, IDF has put it under pressure both directly and through a proxy force, the South Lebanon Army (SLA). As such Unifil has a strong institutional memory of staying put in the direst of circumstances which makes it unlikely to recommend a drawdown.

“UNIFIL,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024

What’s more, the security council is aware that if Unifil leaves the area, another UN-led conflict resolution mechanism is likely to be required in future. This logic is why Unifil mandates have always been renewed – albeit sometimes for three months or less.

The biggest threat to Unifil’s deployment is if one or more troop contributing countries decide the risks are too high and withdraw their contingents. The post-2006 Unifil mission comprises the highest number of European troop contingents of all peace operations worldwide with the main contributors being Italy, Spain, Ireland, and France.

The two sectors that comprise the mission – sector west and sector east – are led by Italy and Spain respectively. The biggest non-EU contributors are India, Ghana, Indonesia and Malaysia. If one or more of these countries were to decide to withdraw troops, this could trigger a reevaluation of the mission’s ability to deploy.

If Unifil were to leave, it is worth noting that their compounds have a large amount of expensive equipment – much of it owned nationally by the troop contributing countries. The logistical challenge of moving troops and equipment in a battle zone would be very difficult and dangerous.

Despite the intense fighting, many civilians still remain. The death toll from the hostilities is now estimated to be 2,306 dead and 10,698 wounded. Unifil’s presence remains crucial to monitor the hostilities and wherever possible, provide civilian protection and humanitarian assistance. But for that to be possible, Israel’s allies must continue to exert pressure to ensure that the IDF ceases all attacks on Unifil.

A new ‘zone of security’?

One possible reason for the attacks is that the IDF believes ridding the area of Unifil exposes Hezbollah and will enable the IDF to continue their incursion unhindered by the watchful eyes of an international observer.

Israeli Operations in Lebanon: Elements of a brigade assigned to the 210th IDF Division entered Lebanon. There are now elements of five IDF divisions in Lebanon.

Hezbollah claimed that it targeted Israeli forces attempting to advance into Markaba and Rab al Thalatheen on October… https://t.co/jIHqHrYTju pic.twitter.com/VGLxvXSFMC

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) October 16, 2024

But there’s another possibility. During the Lebanese civil war, the IDF occupied a section of Lebanese land bordering Israel that was known as the “zone of security”. Its purpose was to serve as a buffer zone for northern Israel, initially designed to protect Israeli citizens from Palestinian militia, and later also from the Shia resistance groups Amal and Hezbollah.

The Israeli request for Unifil to move five kilometres back from the blue line could mean Israel is considering reestablishing some kind of buffer zone. Several factors point to this being a possibility – although the IDF and the Israeli government may not be aligned on this issue as recent tensions suggest.

First, the IDF has now deployed units from at least four divisions into Lebanon. The volume of troop numbers deployed is upwards of 15,000 suggesting this incursion is more than a limited operation.

Second, 29 Unifil compounds lie along the blue line. Were they to be evacuated by the UN, there would be nothing to stop the IDF from moving in and developing them into their own strongholds. While UN positions would need reinforcement and protection equipment, they would nonetheless remain useful.

Third, in 2006 the IDF tried to destroy Hezbollah from the air and deployed limited haphazard ground incursions. These tactics failed and the prevailing view may now be that the only way to guarantee the safe return of 65,000 Israelis to their homes in northern Israel is through an occupation.

But unlike the previous occupation, where the IDF was aided by the SLA, Israel currently has no partner in Lebanon, and it is unlikely to find a willing accomplice among the Lebanese population to help them manage the security of a buffer zone. This means IDF troops would directly bear the brunt of attacks from resistance groups, and the northern Israeli villages would be unlikely to remain secure.

The Netanyahu government’s continued use of military solutions to solve political problems has worrying implications for Israel, Lebanon and the Middle East as a whole. At this stage, Israel looks as if it might be settling back into a conflict that could become another “forever war”.

Thus far, the tactics used by the IDF would imply they are not thinking ahead to “the day after” and the cost to Israel that would come with the prolonged occupation of a buffer zone.

Vanessa Newby, Assistant Professor, Institute of Security and Global Affairs, Leiden University and Chiara Ruffa, Professor of Political Science, Sciences Po

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – United Nations peacekeepers in southern Lebanon have reported a series of incidents over the past few days in which they have been endangered by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) as Israel continues its incursion into southern Lebanon.

Two members of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) were wounded on October 10 when an Israeli tank fired its weapon at Unifil’s headquarters in the city of Naqoura. They are reported to be receiving treatment in hospital for minor injuries.

This follows a series of other reports of IDF troops firing on other Unifil positions in recent days. A Unifil statement called on the IDF “and all actors to ensure the safety and security of UN personnel and property and to respect the inviolability of UN premises at all times.

For 44 years the presence of UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon has provided a much-needed measure of predictability and stability on an international fault line that has the potential to trigger a larger war in the Middle East. Its value has often been to shine an international spotlight on events on the ground and to provide humanitarian assistance to the local population.

The Unifil peacekeeping mission is in an area of southern Lebanon that stretches from the de facto Lebanese border with Israel about 18 miles northwards up to the Litani River. In violation of UN security council resolution 1701, which was issued in 2006 and was designed to bring to an end the 33-day war between Israel and Hezbollah, Israeli tanks have been advancing into southern Lebanon since September 30. Hezbollah is fighting back – and casualties are mounting.

On October 5, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pressed the Unifil Irish Battalion, stationed south-east of Marun al-Ras, to leave its position to allow the IDF to proceed with their invasion. On October 6, Unifil force commander Lt. Gen. Aroldo Lázaro Sáenz denied the request. A Unifil statement said: “Peacekeepers remain in all positions and the UN flag continues to fly.”

The IDF reportedly ceased their military operations in the area on October 8. This is most likely because their military goals have changed. The rapidly unfolding Israeli military action in Lebanon has now deployed an additional 15,000 troops. This raises questions about the “limited” nature of the IDF’s incursion and its goals.

Since 1978, Unifil has provided medical services, electricity, generators, language courses, financial aid and water to local communities. The peacekeeping force has also helped to clear millions of square meters of land from anti-personal mines and cluster bombs, releasing farmland for cultivation and preventing injuries or deaths since the 2006 war.

In 2006, the Unifil mission adopted a new mandate under UN Resolution 1701. Like all newer UN peacekeeping mandates, it contained a protection of civilians clause which authorises Unifil to “protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence”.

Israel contends that Hezbollah missile attacks into northern Israel are an indication that Unifil has never fully implemented 1701 – hence the need to invade and destroy the militant group**. But protection of civilians is central to Unifil’s mandate. While the IDF claims it is targeting Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and leadership, thousands of civilian lives in southern Lebanon remain at risk.

Image by Michel van der Vegt from Pixabay

It has recently been reported that more than 2,000 civilians have died in the latest Israeli incursion, with more than 9,000 injured and over 608,000 displaced. So, implementation of this protection clause has never been more important.

Unifil must not become collateral damage

Unifil’s ability to protect civilians during Israeli incursions has often been challenged because the IDF refused to guarantee the safety of fleeing civilians, either in convoys out of the villages, or in UN compounds.

The most notorious incident was the Qana incident of 1996, when 106 civilians died while sheltering in the Fijian UN compound. In July 2006, the IDF used a precision guided aerial bomb on a Unifil post. The attack killed four international unarmed military observers working under Unifil operational control, despite repeated verbal warnings from Unifil headquarters to avoid the post. The IDF has also damaged Unifil positions in times of peace. In January 2005 an unarmed French UN observer was killed by IDF tank fire. In January 2015 IDF artillery killed a Spanish peacekeeper.

So the challenge for Unifil has always been that if they allow civilians to take shelter in their compounds, they risk becoming part of the IDF’s collateral damage.

Similarly, Hezbollah is also no friend of Unifil. In December 2022, Hezbollah supporters killed an unarmed Irish peacekeeper who ventured accidentally into a village just outside the area of operation.

International witness

Despite these challenges, Unifil still has a powerful role to play in southern Lebanon. As the fog of war engulfs all the protagonists, Unifil has the ability to bring the world’s attention to the current conflict which may help constrain the parties. It is critical at this time to have an international force bear witness to events on the ground and provide basic humanitarian assistance, monitor and report potential violations and guarantee shelter to the local population whenever possible to help the displaced people that remain within the Unifil area of operation.

On October 7, the US State Department warned the IDF that it did not want to see military action taken against Unifil or for the peacekeepers to be put in danger in any way. This warning is welcome given the recent disregard for the UN demonstrated by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. who, when speaking to the UN general assembly on September 27, labelled the UN “contemptible in the eyes of decent people everywhere”. On October 2, the Israeli government barred UN secretary general António Guterres from entering Israel.

Israel’s allies must increase the pressure for the IDF to allow Unifil to exercise the protection of civilians clause contained in its mandate. This would mean allowing the peacekeeping force the freedom of movement in south Lebanon to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid. The IDF must also guarantee the safety of civilians escaping with Unifil’s assistance from the villages. And the IDF must allow Unifil to establish safe zones for civilians trapped in the conflict, to compensate for the absence of air raid shelters and bunkers in Lebanon.

While Unifil may not be able to prevent the bloodshed, for now it can continue help to stem the flow, just as it always has.

Chiara Ruffa, Professor of Political Science, Sciences Po and Vanessa Newby, Assistant Professor, Institute of Security and Global Affairs, Leiden University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

(The Conversation) – Iran fired at least 180 ballistic missiles at Israel on Oct. 1, 2024, amplifying tensions in the Middle East that are increasingly marked by “escalation after escalation,” as United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres put it.

Iran’s attacks – which Israel largely deterred with its Iron Dome missile defense system, along with help from nearby U.S. naval destroyers – followed Israel’s killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader of the Tehran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, on Sept. 27.

Hezbollah has been sending rockets into northern Israel since the start of the Gaza war, which began after Hamas and other militants invaded Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and killed nearly 1,200 people. Hezbollah’s rocket attacks have displaced around 70,000 people from their homes in northern Israel.

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at the Conversation U.S., spoke with counterterrorism expert Javed Ali to better understand the complex history and dynamics that are fueling the intensifying conflict in the Middle East.

How much more dangerous has the Middle East become in recent weeks?

The Middle East is in much more volatile situation than it was even a year ago. This conflict has expanded far outside of fighting primarily between Israel and Hamas.

Now, Israel and Hezbollah have a conflict that has developed over the past year that appears more dangerous than the Israel-Hamas one. This involves the use of Israeli special operations units, which have operated clandestinely in Lebanon in small groups since November 2023. In addition, Israel has been accused by Hezbollah of conducting unconventional warfare operations – like the exploding walkie-talkies and pagers – and launched hundreds of air and missile strikes in Lebanon over the past few weeks. The combination of these operations has destroyed Hezbollah’s weapons caches and military infrastructure and killed several senior leaders in the group, including Hassan Nasrallah.

The human costs of these attacks is significant, as more than 1,000 people in Lebanon have died. Among this total, it is unclear how many of the dead or wounded are actually Hezbollah fighters.

Israel and Hezbollah last had a direct war in 2006, which lasted 34 days and killed over 1,500 people between Lebanese civilians and Hezbollah fighters. Since then, Israel and Hezbollah have been in a shadow war – but not with the same kind of intensity and daily pattern that we have seen in the post-Oct. 7 landscape.

Now, the conflict has the potential to widen well outside the region, and even globally.

What does Iran have to do with the conflict between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah?

Iran has said it fired the missiles into Israel as retaliation for attacks on Hezbollah, Hamas and the Iranian military.

A coalition of groups and organizations has now been labeled as Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.” Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini, and senior military commanders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or the IRGC, have issued unifying guidance to all the different elements, whether it is Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon or Shia militias in Iraq and Syria.

Before Oct. 7, 2023, all of these groups were ideologically opposed to Israel, to a degree. But they were also fighting their own conflicts and were not rallying around supporting Hamas. Now, they have all become more active around a common goal of destroying Israel.

Iran and Hezbollah, in particular, have a deep relationship, dating back to the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In 1982, Israel invaded southern Lebanon in order to thwart cross-border attacks the Palestinian Liberation Organization and other Palestinian groups were launching into Israel. The newly formed Iranian IRGC sent advisers and trainers to southern Lebanon to work with like-minded Lebanese Shiite militants who were already fighting in Lebanon’s civil war. They wanted to fight against the Israeli military and elements of the multinational force comprised of U.S., French and other Western troops that were originally sent as peacekeepers to put an end to the fighting.

How does Hezbollah’s history help explain its operations today?

The relationships between these Iranian experts and Lebanese militants during Lebanon’s 15-year civil war led to the formation of Hezbollah as a small, clandestine group in 1982.

During the following few years, Hezbollah launched a brutal campaign of terrorist attacks against U.S., French and other Western interests in Lebanon. The group, then known as Islamic Jihad, first attacked the U.S. embassy in Beirut on April 18, 1983. That attack killed 52 Lebanese and American embassy employees. However, at the time, U.S. intelligence personnel and other security experts were not clear who was responsible for the embassy bombing. And given this lack of understanding and insight on Hezbollah as an emerging terrorist threat, the group aimed even higher later in 1983.

Following the embassy attack, Hezbollah carried out the October 1983 Marine barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. service personnel. Before the 9/11 attacks, this was the biggest single act of international terrorism against the U.S.

Hezbollah was also responsible for the kidnapping and murder of American citizens, including William Buckley, the CIA station chief for Beirut. And it carried out airplane hijackings, including the infamous TWA 847 incident in 1985, in which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered.

So, Hezbollah has a long history of regional and global terrorism.

Within Lebanon, Hezbollah is a kind of parallel government to Lebanon. The Lebanese government has allowed Hezbollah to be this state within a state, but they don’t collaborate on military operations. Currently, the Lebanese military is not responding to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon. This shows how dominant of a force Hezbollah has become.

How damaging are Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah?

Hezbollah has clearly taken losses in fighters, but Hezbollah is a far bigger group than Hamas and operates on a much bigger physical territory across Lebanon.

It has far more inventory of advanced weapons than Hamas ever did, and a large fighting force that includes 40,000 to 50,000 regular forces organized into a conventional military structure. It also has 150,000 to 200,000 rockets, drones and missiles of varying range. It operates a dangerous global terrorist unit known as the External Security Organization that has attacked Israeli and Jewish interests in the 1990s in Argentina and Jewish tourists in 2012 in Bulgaria.

The Israeli military assesses they have destroyed at least half of Hezbollah’s existing weapons stockpile, based on the volume and intensity of their operations over the past few weeks. If true, this, would present a serious challenge to Hezbollah’s long-term operational capability that took decades to acquire.

What security risks does this evolving conflict present for the U.S.?

Looking at how Hezbollah demonstrated these capabilities over a 40-year stretch of time, and based now on how Israel has hit the militant group, it would not be a stretch to speculate that Hezbollah has ordered or is considering some kind of terrorist attack far outside the region – similar to what the group did in Argentina in 1992 and 1994. What that plot would like look, how many people would be involved and the possible target of any such attack are not clear.

Hezbollah’s leaders have said that they blame Israel for the attacks on it. About a week before Nasrallah’s death, he said that Israel’s exploding pager and walkie-talkie operations in Lebanon were a “declaration of war” and the “the enemy had crossed all red lines.”

Since then, Hezbollah has remained defiant, in spite of the significant losses the group has sustained by Israel these past few weeks. Questions also remain about how Hezbollah’s leadership will likewise hold the U.S. responsible for Israel’s actions. And if so, would that mean a return to the type of terrorism that Hezbollah inflicted on U.S. interests in the region in the 1980s? As recent events have shown, the world is facing a dangerous and volatile security environment in the Middle East.

Javed Ali, Associate Professor of Practice of Public Policy, University of Michigan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

—

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

India Today: “Iran’s Missile Attack On Israel Ignites Massive Tensions In West Asia | Iran Israel War Escalates”

From a military perspective, both the Iraqi and Iranian attacks failed to achieve any immediate military objectives. Yet both attacks may have achieved a symbolic victory in the long term.

The events that brought the decades-long shadow war between Iran and Israel out into the open occurred in March. Until then, both states had mostly fought each other through proxy wars and assassinations.

Seven months ago, however, Israel killed a general belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran’s diplomatic facility in Damascus. That provocation was enough for Tehran to retaliate the following month when it fired 300 drones and ballistic and cruise missiles. Israel then responded by conducting a long-distance air raid against a military base in Isfahan that same month, marking its first ever direct attack on Iran.

Both states claimed victory. Iran demonstrated for the first time that it has weapons that can reach Israel, even if most were intercepted. Israel had to rely on American and British aircraft to intercept these projectiles, further elevating Iran’s status as a Middle Eastern actor that provoked all three powers to react. Israel’s retaliation, meanwhile, was a message to Iran that it can conduct long-distance air raids to hit its nuclear facilities in the future.

That episode appeared to have ended, giving each state the chance to claim that they had established deterrence against the other. It appeared to be a repeat of the crisis of January 2020, when then US president Donald Trump ordered the assassination of the IRGC general Qassem Suleimani. Iran retaliated with 22 ballistic missiles launched at US forces in Iraq. No Americans were killed, and the episode ended for both sides.

What upset a similar balance between Iran and Israel came in late July, when Israel conducted a more significant long-range aerial attack that killed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. At the time, Israel struck Iran’s capital, violating not only its sovereignty but also its reputation of protecting its guests. Yet Iran did not retaliate.

This begs the question as to why Tehran chose to attack Israel last night. After all, its April salvo was intercepted, and it appears even weaker now given that no missiles were able to hit significant targets yesterday either.

There are two explanations for this. Having failed to retaliate for Haniyeh’s death, Tehran would have appeared particularly weak had it not responded to the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah last week. Going farther back, Saddam Hussein’s strike against Israel in 1991 might shed important light, too.

“Mulla-Rocket,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024

During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam launched close to 40 Scud ballistic missiles towards Israel, aimed at Tel Aviv and its nuclear facility in Dimona, the same facility that Iran targeted in April.

Saddam had sought to disrupt the large international coalition that the US had assembled, and which had included Egypt and Syria, by attempting to force Israel to strike back and thereby dividing the Arab world. The attacks killed 13 people, but with Washington having restrained Israel from its longstanding policy of swift retaliation, Saddam’s ruse appeared to have failed at the time.

In 1999, just eight years after those events, I got into a taxi in Jerusalem that was being driven by a Palestinian. When he enquired about my origins after I spoke Arabic to him, I responded by saying “Asli Iraqi”. He then praised Saddam with a by-now familiar refrain: “Saddam was the only leader who fought for the Palestinians,” regardless of facts on the ground. Relations between Iraq and Palestinian leaders have, of course, historically been strong. But that’s when I realised that while Saddam had lost the Gulf War, he had won the war for Palestinian memory.

Israel may have intercepted Iran’s missiles last night, but it is painfully clear to every Israeli that Tehran has the ability to target their country on a consistent basis. Further, it has been widely reported that many Gazans mourned the death of Nasrallah, even though it was met largely with indifference in the rest of the Arab world. Many Gazans also reportedly cheered Iran’s overnight attack on Israel, if only because it had forced Israel’s government to divert some of its attention away from the beleaguered enclave.

Palestinians are not going to forget what they have endured since October 7, for generations to come. Many are just as likely to remember Iran’s strikes on Israel, regardless of their merit, as a show of solidarity with Gaza.

Reprinted from The National with the author’s permission.

For years, Iran has been trying to avoid such a war. That is why it signed the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement with the United States, the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union. Donald Trump unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of the JCPOA in 2018, and despite Joe Biden’s much-touted differences with Trump, he failed to restore U.S. compliance. Instead, he tried to use Trump’s violation of the treaty as leverage to demand further concessions from Iran. This only served to further aggravate the schism between the United States and Iran, which have had no diplomatic relations since 1980.

Now, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees his long-awaited chance to draw the United States into war with Iran. By killing Iranian military leaders and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil, as well as attacking Iran’s allies in Lebanon and Yemen, Netanyahu provoked a military response from Iran that has given him an excuse to widen the conflict even further. Tragically, there are warmongering U.S. officials who would welcome a war on Iran, and many more who would blindly go along with it.

Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, campaigned on a platform of reconciling with the West. When he came to New York to speak at the UN General Assembly on September 25, he was accompanied by three members of Iran’s JCPOA negotiating team: former foreign minister Javad Zarif; current foreign minister Abbas Araghchi; and deputy foreign minister Majid Ravanchi.

President Pezeshkian’s message in New York was conciliatory. With Zarif and Araghchi at his side at a press conference on September 23, he talked of peace, and of reviving the dormant nuclear agreement. “Vis-a-vis the JCPOA, we said 100 times we are willing to live up to our agreements,” he said. “We do hope we can sit at the table and hold discussions.”

On the crisis in the Middle East, Pezeshkian said that Iran wanted peace and had exercised restraint in the face of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, its assassinations of resistance leaders and Iranian officials, and its war on its neighbors. 

“Let’s create a situation where we can co-exist,” said Pezeshkian. “Let’s try to resolve tensions through dialogue…We are willing to put all of our weapons aside so long as Israel will do the same.” He added that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not, and that Israel’s nuclear arsenal is a serious threat to Iran.

Pezeshkian reiterated Iran’s desire for peace in his speech at the UN General Assembly.

“Yahoo-Tank,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024

“I am the president of a country that has endured threats, war, occupation, and sanctions throughout its modern history,” he said. “Others have neither come to our assistance nor respected our declared neutrality. Global powers have even sided with aggressors. We have learned that we can only rely on our own people and our own indigenous capabilities. The Islamic Republic of Iran seeks to safeguard its own security, not to create insecurity for others. We want peace for all and seek no war or quarrel with anyone.”

The U.S. response to Iran’s restraint throughout this crisis has been to keep sending destructive weapons to Israel, with which it has devastated Gaza, killed tens of thousands of women and children, bombed neighboring capitals, and beefed up the forces it would need to attack Iran. 

That includes a new order for 50 F-15EX long-range bombers, with 750 gallon fuel tanks for the long journey to Iran. That arms deal still has to pass the Senate, where Senator Bernie Sanders is leading the opposition. 

On the diplomatic front, the U.S. vetoed successive cease-fire resolutions in the UN Security Council and hijacked Qatar and Egypt’s cease-fire negotiations to provide diplomatic cover for unrestricted genocide.

Military leaders in the United States and Israel appear to be arguing against war on Iran, as they have in the past. Even George W. Bush and Dick Cheney balked at launching another catastrophic war based on lies against Iran, after the CIA publicly admitted in its 2006 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons. 

When Trump threatened to attack Iran, Tulsi Gabbard warned him that a U.S. war on Iran would be so catastrophic that it would finally, retroactively, make the war on Iraq look like the “cakewalk” the neocons had promised it would be.

But neither U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin nor Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant can control their countries’ war policies, which are in the hands of political leaders with political agendas. Netanyahu has spent many years trying to draw the United States into a war with Iran, and has kept escalating the Gaza crisis for a year, at the cost of tens of thousands of innocent lives, with that goal clearly in mind.

Biden has been out of his depth throughout this crisis, relying on political instincts from an era when acting tough and blindly supporting Israel were politically safe positions for American politicians. Secretary of State Antony Blinken rose to power through the National Security Council and as a Senate staffer, not as a diplomat, riding Biden’s coat-tails into a senior position where he is as out of his depth as his boss.

Meanwhile, pro-Iran militia groups in Iraq warn that, if the U.S. joins in strikes on Iran, they will target U.S. bases in Iraq and the region.

So we are careening toward a catastrophic war with Iran, with no U.S. diplomatic leadership and only Trump and Harris waiting in the wings. As Trita Parsi wrote in Responsible Statecraft, “If U.S. service members find themselves in the line of fire in an expanding Iran-Israel conflict, it will be a direct result of this administration’s failure to use U.S. leverage to pursue America’s most core security interest here — avoiding war.”

Via Code Pink

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has condemned Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. However, in his official statement, Erdoğan did not directly mention Nasrallah or Hezbollah.

Instead, he criticized Israel’s actions, describing them as a “policy of genocide, occupation, and invasion.” Erdoğan also called on the United Nations Security Council to take immediate action, emphasizing Türkiye’s support for Lebanon. “We will continue to stand by the Lebanese people and government in these difficult days,” Erdoğan added.

Compared to the assassination of Hamas Political Bureau Chief Ismail Haniyeh, Turkish officials adopted a more cautious tone following the death of Nasrallah. Haniyeh’s assassination in July 2024 drew strong condemnation from Ankara, with officials referring to him as a “martyr.” Türkiye even declared a national day of mourning in Haniyeh’s honor.

This raises an important question: why has Türkiye been relatively quiet on Nasrallah’s assassination?

Background: Sectarianism and Syria

Türkiye’s desire to avoid statements that could be perceived as supportive of Hezbollah stems from sectarian differences and Hezbollah’s role in the Syrian Civil War.

Journalists Musa Özuğurlu, speaking on the pro-opposition channel Tele1, and Mehmet Ali Güller, from the pro-opposition newspaper Cumhuriyet, both highlighted the sectarian differences between Hamas and Hezbollah when discussing how Erdoğan distinguishes between the two organizations.

They both noted that Erdoğan is more supportive of Hamas than Hezbollah, as Hamas is a Sunni organization, while Hezbollah is primarily a Shia Islamist organization.

Additionally, with the start of the Syrian Civil War, Türkiye and Hezbollah found themselves on opposing sides. Hezbollah supported the Bashar al-Assad regime, while Türkiye supported Syrian opposition groups like the Free Syrian Army (FSA) seeking to overthrow Assad.

Hezbollah has occasionally clashed with Turkish-backed rebel groups in Syria, and during the Battle of Idlib, a rare direct confrontation between Türkiye and Hezbollah also occurred. At that time, Idlib was the last major stronghold of the Syrian opposition. Following the deaths of 34 Turkish soldiers in a Syrian-Russian airstrike on February 27, 2020, Türkiye launched ‘Operation Spring Shield.

Click here to donate via PayPal.

During the military operation, Turkish drones and artillery killed fourteen Hezbollah members. The Jerusalem Post reported that the IDF identified several Radwan operatives among the casualties and observed the battle to gather insights. Radwan Force is an elite unit within Hezbollah known for its highly trained operatives who operate in various theaters, including Lebanon and Syria.

While Erdoğan appears to keep his distance from Nasrallah and Hezbollah, he also has been striving to accelerate normalization talks with Damascus.

How does Türkiye view Hezbollah?

Although Ankara has been at odds with Hezbollah, it does not designate the group as a terrorist organization, unlike Türkiye’s Western allies.

In an interview with the state broadcaster TRT, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan revealed that he met with Nasrallah in Lebanon shortly after October 7 under difficult conditions.

Fidan described Nasrallah as a major regional figure, noting that his death will leave a void that will be difficult to fill. He also called Nasrallah’s death a significant loss for both Hezbollah and Iran.

While Turkish officials adopted a careful tone, pro-government media harshly criticized Hezbollah’s role in the region.

On a program aired by A Haber, retired Colonel and security pundit Coşkun Başbuğ claimed that Nasrallah was working for Mossad and that Hezbollah’s leadership was “sold out.” Başbuğ argued that Hezbollah could have turned the Israeli border into a “hell” but did not due to its compromised leadership.

Başbuğ stated that Nasrallah and other Hezbollah leaders were discarded by those who used them. Additionally, he referred to Hezbollah’s missile attacks as mere “firework displays.”

Yeni Şafak columnist and a former Justice and Development Party (AKP) MP Aydın Ünal said the assassination of Nasrallah was met with joy and excitement by the oppressed Syrians.

Ünal said that Nasrallah, following orders from Iran, had brutally and mercilessly carried out massacres of Muslims.

“The removal of Hezbollah will not only ensure Lebanon’s stabilization but will also mean the elimination of the buffer, barrier, and obstacle in the Palestinian resistance,” Ünal said.

Solidarity with Lebanon

Erdoğan met Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati on September 25 on the sidelines of the 79th UN General Assembly. He reportedly expressed Türkiye’s solidarity with Lebanon in the face of Israeli attacks. He emphasized the urgent need for the international community to implement a solution to halt Israel’s aggression.

As Israel intensified its attacks on Lebanon, Erdoğan stated on September 30 that if the UN Security Council fails to halt Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon, the UN General Assembly should recommend the use of force, in accordance with a resolution it passed in 1950.

Hours after the Israeli ground invasion of Lebanon began, Erdoğan reiterated Türkiye’s support for Lebanon in an October 1 speech at the reopening of the Turkish Parliament following its summer recess.

He emphasized that Türkiye would support Lebanon with all its means. “After Lebanon, the next place he will set his sights on will be our homeland. Netanyahu is adding Anatolia to his dreams,” Erdogan added. Anatolia is a large peninsula in western Asia that makes up the majority of modern-day Türkiye.

Overall, Türkiye’s support appears to be directed more toward the Lebanese population and Lebanon as a state, rather than Hezbollah as an organization. Türkiye’s current foreign policy on Lebanon emphasizes humanitarian concerns, regional stability, condemnation of broader Israeli actions in the region, and criticism of Western support for Israel.

Note: Türkiye designates a separate Islamist group called “Kurdish Hezbollah” as a terrorist organization. This Sunni Islamist group operates primarily in southeastern Türkiye and is not connected to the Shia Lebanese Hezbollah. The two groups have distinct goals and ideological principles.

——-

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

Hindustan Times: “Turkey’s Erdogan Ups The Ante, Calls For UN To Use Force Against Israel Amid Lebanon, Gaza Conflict”