(The Conversation) – The fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has opened a new front for geopolitical competition in the Middle East.

Now, however, instead of Iran and Russia playing the most influential roles in Syria, Israel and Turkey see an opportunity to advance their conflicting national and regional security interests.

Under their respective leaders, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, relations between the two countries have deteriorated sharply in recent years. This sets the stage for a bitter showdown over Syria.

A new rivalry is emerging

Turkey is widely reported to have backed the offensive led by the Sunni rebel group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), to drive Assad from power, thus backstabbing Syria’s traditional allies, Iran and Russia.

Tehran has intimated that without Turkey’s support, HTS would have been unable to achieve its blistering takeover.

Now, with Assad gone, Erdoğan is believed to be positioning himself as de facto leader of the Sunni Muslim world. He also wants Turkey to be one of the dominant powers in the region.

Erdoğan has said if the Ottoman Empire had been divided in a different way following its defeat in the First World war, several Syrian cities, including Aleppo and Damascus, would have likely been part of modern-day Turkey.

Turkey immediately reopened its embassy in Damascus after Assad’s fall and offered help to HTS in shaping the country’s new Islamist order.

As part of this, Erdoğan has opposed any concession by HTS to the US-backed Kurdish minority in Syria’s northeast, which he regards as supporters of the Kurdish separatists in Turkey.

Meanwhile, Israel has taken advantage of the power vacuum in Syria to advance its territorial and security ambitions. It has launched a land incursion into the Syrian side of the strategic Golan Heights and has executed a massive bombardment of Syria’s military assets across the country.

Israel’s foreign minister said destroying these assets – which included ammunition depots, fighter jets, missiles and chemical weapons storage facilities – was necessary to ensure they didn’t fall into the “hands of extremists” that could pose a threat to the Jewish state.

Turkey sees Israel’s recent actions in Syria and the occupied Golan Heights as a land grab. Israel’s actions have also been denounced by Arab countries, who demand Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected.

Israel is clearly concerned about the rise to power of an Islamist group and the transformation of Syria into a jihadist state.

This is despite the fact that HTS leader Ahmad al-Sharaa (also known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani) has signalled he does not want conflict with Israel. He’s also pledged not to allow any groups to use Syria for attacks on Israel.

At the same time, al-Sharaa has called for the withdrawal of Israel from Syrian territory according to a 1974 agreement that followed the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

Bitter foes

Erdoğan, Turkey’s moderate Islamist president, has long been a supporter of the Palestinian cause and a fierce critic of Israel. But tensions have significantly escalated between the two sides since the start of the Gaza war.

Erdoğan has called for an Arab-Islamic front to stop what he’s called Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza. He has equally berated Israel’s invasion of Lebanon earlier this year.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, has lashed out at Erdoğan over the years. He has called him a “joke” and “dictator” whose jails are full journalists and political prisoners. He has also accused of Erdoğan of committing a “genocide” of the Kurdish people.

Washington, which is allied to both Turkey and Israel, has launched intense diplomatic efforts to ensure that HTS moves Syria in a favourable direction. It is keen to see a post-Assad system of governance aligned with America’s interests.

These interests include HTS’ support for America’s Kurdish allies in northeast Syria and the continued presence of 1,000 American troops in the country. The US also wants HTS to continue to prevent the Islamic State terror group from regaining strength.

“In this Corner . . .” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

The US will also have to manage the emerging geopolitical rivalry between Israel and Turkey in Syria.

Some observers have not ruled out the possibility of an Israeli-Turkish military showdown, should Israel turn what it calls its temporary occupation of the demilitarised zone on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights into a permanent territorial acquisition.

This is not to say a war between them is imminent. But their clashing interests and the breadth of mutual hostility has certainly reached a new level.

Iran’s loss could be costly

For Iran, Assad’s ouster means the loss of a critical ally in its predominantly Shia “axis of resistance” against Israel and the United States.

The Iranian regime had worked hard to build this network over the last 45 years as a fundamental part of its national and wider security. It had propped up Assad’s minority Alawite dictatorship over the Sunni majority population in Syria at the cost of some US$30 billion (A$47 billion) since the popular uprising against Assad began in 2011.

And with Assad now gone, Iran is deprived of a vital land and air bridge to one of its key proxies – Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Assad regime’s sudden demise is now causing soul searching in Tehran about the wisdom of its regional strategy – and whether it will have any significant role at all in the new Syria. This seems unlikely, as al-Sharaa (the leader of HTS) has declared his disdain for both Iran and Hezbollah.

Al-Sharaa has prioritised the establishment of a publicly mandated Islamist government and Syria’s reconstruction and national unity over a conflict with Israel, Iran’s arch enemy. This will no doubt lead to contention with the hardliners and reformists in Iran.

Only time will tell how all of this will play out. At this stage, the future of Syria and the region hangs in the balance. And much depends on whether HTS leaders will move to set up an all-inclusive political system and unite a Balkanised Syria.

Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University

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

Khamenei on December 11 also implicitly blamed Turkey for the lightning push of Syrian rebels who reached Damascus from their strongholds in the northwest with little resistance.

“It should not be doubted that what happened in Syria was the product of a joint American and Zionist plot,” he said.

“Yes, a neighboring government of Syria plays, played, and is playing a clear role…but the main conspirator, mastermind, and command center are in America and the Zionist regime,” Khamenei added.

The U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and its allies — some of whom are linked with Turkey — ousted Assad on December 8, less than two weeks after launching their offensive.

Syria under Assad served as a crucial part of a land corridor connecting Iran to the Levant, which was considered the logistical backbone of the so-called axis of resistance — Iran’s loose network of regional proxies and allies.

Iran spent billions of dollars and sent military advisers to Syria to ensure Assad remained in power when civil war broke out in 2011.

Russia — where the ousted Syrian leader has been granted political asylum — also backed Assad, while Turkey has supported rebel groups who aimed to topple the regime.

A Khamenei adviser once described Syria as the “golden ring” in the chain connecting Iran to its Lebanese partner, Hezbollah. With the ring broken and Hezbollah’s capabilities degraded after a devastating war with Israel, experts say the axis has become severely weak.

“Foiled,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Khamenei said only “ignorant and uninformed analysts” would assess that the axis has become weak and vowed that its reach “will expand across the region more than before.”

Reza Alijani, an Iranian political analyst based in France, told RFE/RL’s Radio Farda that Khamenei’s comments were more “trash talk” than anything else.

“The axis may not have been defeated, but it has suffered a serious blow and the Islamic republics arms in the region have been deal major hits,” he said.

Alijani argued that factions within the Islamic republic’s core support base may be starting to question Khamenei’s policies and vision after the recent setbacks, which he said is a cause for concern among the clerical establishment’s top brass.

With reporting by Hooman Askary of RFE/RL’s Radio Farda

Via RFE/ RL

Copyright (c)2024 RFE/RL, Inc. Used with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

Human Rights Watch determined that Israeli forces carried out the attack using an air-dropped bomb equipped with a United States-produced Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) guidance kit. The US government should suspend weapons transfers to Israel because of the military’s repeated, unlawful attacks on civilians, for which US officials may be complicit in war crimes.

“Israel’s use of US arms to unlawfully attack and kill journalists away from any military target is a terrible mark on the United States as well as Israel,” said Richard Weir, senior crisis, conflict and arms researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Israeli military’s previous deadly attacks on journalists without any consequences give little hope for accountability in this or future violations against the media.”

The attack took place in the early morning at the Hasbaya Village Club Resort in Hasbaya, a town in southern Lebanon, where more than a dozen journalists had been staying for over three weeks. Human Rights Watch found no evidence of fighting, military forces, or military activity in the immediate area at the time of the attack. Information Human Rights Watch reviewed indicates that the Israeli military knew or should have known that journalists were staying in the area and in the targeted building. After initially stating that its forces struck a building where “terrorists were operating,” the Israeli military said hours later that “the incident is under review.”

Human Rights Watch interviewed eight people who were staying at or near the resort, including three injured journalists and the resort’s owner. Human Rights Watch also visited the site on November 1 and verified 6 videos and 22 photos of the attack and its aftermath, plus satellite images. There has been no response to letters sent to the Israeli military on November 14 with findings and questions and to the Lebanese military on November 5 with questions.

The attack on the building in which the journalists were staying took place just after 3 a.m., based on interviews and CCTV footage with the same time code. Most of the journalists were sleeping. Zakaria Fadel, 25, an assistant cameraman for Lebanon-based ISOL for Broadcast, a Lebanese satellite and broadcast services provider, said he was brushing his teeth when the blast threw him into the air.

A munition struck the single-story building and detonated upon hitting the floor. The blast killed Ghassan Najjar, a journalist and cameraman, and Mohammad Reda, a satellite broadcast engineer, both from Al Mayadeen TV, and Wissam Kassem, a cameraman from the Hezbollah-owned outlet Al Manar TV. Al Mayadeen is a Lebanon-based pan-Arab television station politically allied with Hezbollah and the Syrian government.

Human Rights Watch verified videos taken minutes after the attack which show the targeted building completely destroyed and nearby buildings damaged. The strike collapsed a wall in the adjacent building, seriously injuring Hassan Hoteit, 48, a cameraman for ISOL for Broadcast, and substantially damaged the wall of a small building about 10 meters away, injuring other journalists, including Ali Mortada, 46, a camera operator for Al Jazeera.

Mortada said he woke to the blast and pieces of concrete falling on him, injuring his face and his right arm. When the debris stopped falling, he went to see if his colleagues were okay. He and others found Hoteit injured, and the building struck destroyed. Mortada said he saw the bodies of Kassem and Najjar nearby. They found Reda’s remains further away.

Soon after, the resort’s concierge approached them, saying he had found two human legs in one bedroom. Ehab el-Okdy, a reporter for Al Jazeera who was staying at the resort, said that he also saw the bodies and body parts of the dead reporters. “We saw the bodies,” he said. “We saw Mohammad Reda was shattered all over the place.”

Anoir Ghaida, the resort’s owner, said the journalists had arrived on October 1, following an evacuation order from the Israeli military for an area south of Hasbaya. The journalists had been reporting from Ibl al-Saqi, an area included in the evacuation order.

The journalists said that from October 1 until the day of the attack, they made routine and repeated trips, reporting from the Hasbaya area, frequently doing live television reports from a hilltop that overlooked large parts of southern Lebanon. The journalists and Ghaida said they would leave the resort in the morning and return in the evening, about the same time each day. Most of the vehicles at the resort were marked “Press” or “TV.”

The journalists and Ghaida said they constantly heard the buzzing of aerial drones in the area, indicating it was most likely under Israeli surveillance. Prior to October 25, there had been no attacks on Hasbaya town.

Since the current hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah began on October 8, 2023, the Israeli military has attacked and killed journalists and targeted Al Mayadeen TV. On October 23, Israeli forces attacked and destroyed an office used by Al Mayadeen in Beirut. Al Mayadeen had evacuated their staff from the building.

Israeli strikes killed at least six Lebanese journalists between October 8, 2023, and October 29, 2024, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Human Rights Watch found that the October 13, 2023 attack, which killed the Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah and injured six other journalists, was an apparent war crime. On November 21, 2023, an Israeli strike killed two Lebanese journalists reporting for Al Mayadeen TV, Rabih al-Maamari and Farah Omar, and their driver, Hussein Akil, in Tayr Harfa in southern Lebanon.

“Journalism Targeted,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, 2024

Human Rights Watch verified a photo and video from Najjar’s funeral that showed his casket wrapped in a Hezbollah flag and buried in a southern Beirut cemetery where Hezbollah fighters are buried, near the grave of al-Maamari. A Hezbollah spokesperson told Human Rights Watch on November 14 that Najjar had asked to be buried near his friend and colleague al-Maamari, but that Najjar “was just a civilian” and “had no involvement whatsoever in any military activities.”

Human Rights Watch found remnants at the attack site and reviewed photographs of remnants collected by the resort owner and determined that they were consistent with a JDAM guidance kit assembled and sold by the US company Boeing. Human Rights Watch identified one remnant as part of the guidance kit’s actuation system that moves the fins. It bore a numerical code identifying it as having been manufactured by Woodard, a US company that makes components for guidance systems on munitions, including the JDAM. The JDAM is affixed to air-dropped bombs and allows them to be guided to a target by using satellite coordinates, making the weapon accurate to within several meters.

Human Rights Watch wrote to Boeing and to Woodard on November 14, but did not receive responses. Companies have responsibilities under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, and related guidance to stop, prevent, mitigate, or remediate actual and potential violations of international humanitarian law that they cause, contribute to, or are linked with. 

Given Israel’s record of widespread laws of war violations and lack of accountability, companies should end arms sales, recall already sold weapons wherever possible, and stop all support services for already sold weapons.

Human Rights Watch has previously documented the Israeli military’s unlawful use of US-equipped weapons in a strike in March that killed seven aid workers in southern Lebanon.

International humanitarian law, or the laws of war, prohibits attacks against civilians and civilian objects. Journalists are considered civilians and are immune from attack so long as they are not directly participating in hostilities. Journalists cannot be attacked for their work as journalists, even if the opposing party considers the media biased or being used for propaganda. When carrying out any attack, warring parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm and damage to civilian objects. This includes taking all necessary actions to verify that targets are military objectives.

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.

Lebanon should urgently accept the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction to give the court’s prosecutor a mandate to investigate serious international crimes committed on the country’s territory.

Israel’s key allies—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany—should suspend military assistance and arms sales to Israel, given the real risk that they will be used to commit grave abuses. US policy prohibits arms transfers to states “more likely than not” to use them in violations of international law.

“As evidence mounts of Israel’s unlawful use of US weapons, including in apparent war crimes, US officials need to decide whether they will uphold US and international law by halting arms sales to Israel or risk being found legally complicit in serious violations,” Weir said.

(The Conversation) – Is Iran poised for a succession in leadership? Well, that depends on what you read.

For weeks, rumors have been swirling about the health of the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as a possible replacement. In late October 2024, the Jerusalem Post picked up a New York Times report that initially suggested the octogenarian leader, who has served in the role since 1989, was seriously ill. While the Times report was updated with a correction saying it had erroneously reported on what was known about his current health, it did say that a “quiet battle” had emerged over his succession, including that his second son, Mojtaba, could succeed him.

The rumor mill again kicked into overdrive in late November, with various media outlets, including those in Israel, suggesting that Khamenei had fallen into a coma and that the race was on to appoint his successor should he remain incapacitated or worse. Iranian sources quickly refuted the speculation.

Such conjecture is nothing new, with reports as far back as 2007 and more recently in 2022 pointing to the supreme leader’s purportedly ill health.

The truth of Khamenei’s health aside, the speculation points to an ever-present reality: The conflict between Iran on one side and Israel and the West on the other is not just about military might and threats – there is also an information battle being waged.

In that battle, the narrative of Khamenei’s poor health can be seen as a proxy for the health and stability of the Islamic Republic. One story has it that the Islamic Republic is unstable and just one major event away from wholesale change; the other, that the government in Tehran is well positioned to deal with both internal succession and external ideological foes.

The war of words

The speculation regarding Khamenei’s health comes amid a particularly tense moment in Israeli-Iranian relations. For the past year, the long-time foes have exchanged fiery rhetoric, which has been exacerbated by a series of escalatory events, including high-profile assassinations of Iran-alligned figures in Gaza, Lebanon and Tehran, and more lately direct military confrontation.

Throughout, both sides have utilized media and online platforms to push opposing official narratives that then find digital echo chambers.

Take the tit-for-tat missile strikes in October. Israel and Iran sought to downplay the impact of the respective strikes on their own territory by feeding media with statements suggesting little damage had been done.

At the same time, media sources from inside both nations were quick to suggest that the strikes had fulfilled their goals. Iranian media suggested Iranian missiles hit about 90% of Israeli targets; Israeli media countered that major Iranian nuclear research facilities had been hit and severely impaired Iran’s research capabilities.

“Competition,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3, Clip2Comic, IbisPaint, 2024

Such narratives are designed not only to send self-proclaimed messages of victory to the other side but also to appease domestic audiences. For Tehran, the messaging is intended to extend further, namely to regional partners – suggesting that Israel had been weakened by Iran’s attack and that Tehran still has their back.

Social media has played a key role in getting these counter messages across to a wider public. Since 2010, Iran has sought to distort the social media landscape through the establishment of pro-regime “sock puppets” that amplify pro-government propaganda. Former Iranian Intelligence Minister Heider Moslehi acknowledged back in 2011 that Tehran had made a large investment in “heavy information warfare.”

Meanwhile, Israel and other opponents of the Iranian government utilize online platforms to carry messages directly to the people of Iran, too. Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the former Shah of Iran, have used YouTube and other platforms to encourage rebellion against the government in Tehran.

Iran has used similar digital channels, with veteran diplomat Mohammad Javad Zarif using the platform to highlight Iran’s culture and history and shared values with Jews, while at the same time slamming the Israeli government for its role in pushing the Trump administration to abandon the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.

What does it all mean?

The exchange of missile strikes by Iran and Israel in October prompted widespread speculation among media outlets, politicians and diplomats that the region was on the brink of a full-scale conventional war.

Indeed, the rhetorical exchanges between Tehran and Tel Aviv include explicit threats of devastating retaliatory measures and warnings of significant escalation. Yet the cycle of reciprocal strikes has, to date, appeared to satisfy the strategic objectives of both sides’ military leadership.

And for now, the information and messaging war is again seemingly taking precedence over actual hot war.

After the last missile strike, carried out by Israel on Oct. 26, Iran stated that it retained the right to respond at a time and method of its choosing. But that, too, was perhaps an extension of the media narrative campaign.

Rather, the current situation suggests to me a deliberate and calculated strategy by both Iranian and Israeli forces to conserve their respective military resources, while attempting to achieve domestic and regional objectives via the information war.

For Israel, this means pushing the narrative that it has displayed the capability to reach critical Iranian infrastructure and sensitive security targets as desired. For Iran, it takes the form of saying it has reestablished sufficient deterrence against a stronger Israeli military.

Having escalated into direct military confrontation, the Iran-Israel conflict appears to have entered a new transitional phase.

Iranian state media continue to condemn Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon, while simultaneously issuing statements from senior military commanders reaffirming Tehran’s readiness to respond to perceived acts of aggression.

But for now, at least, warfare is being conducted via information and disinformation rather than through conventional military weapons.

Shirvin Zeinalzadeh, Graduate Teaching Associate, Arizona State University

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

“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.