Follow us on social

Netanyahu to UN: Get your peacekeepers out of Lebanon

Netanyahu to UN: Get your peacekeepers out of Lebanon

The Israel PM said Sunday they should evacuate if they don't want to get hurt

Analysis | QiOSK

UPDATE 10/13: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel regretted the “harm done” to UNIFIL peacekeepers this week in Southern Lebanon but if the United Nations doesn't want further injuries to its forces then it needs to “remove them from the danger zone.”


UPDATE 10/12: A fifth UN peacekeeper has been injured in the village of Naquora in Southern Lebanon. According to UNIFIL the peacekeeper was undergoing surgery from a bullet wound on Saturday but would not confirm how he became to be shot. UNIFIL also said its buildings at a position in the village of Ramyah sustained "significant damage due to explosions from nearby shelling" on Friday. Also Friday, two Sri Lankan men serving as peacekeepers were also injured in Naquora. The IDF acknowledged that its troops were responsible and would be investigated "at the highest levels".



According to reports, Indonesian citizens serving as peacekeepers under the UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) were injured when the Israeli military fired on their headquarters Thursday.

This is the third incident in two days. From UNIFIL today:

This morning, two peacekeepers were injured after an IDF Merkava tank fired its weapon toward an observation tower at UNIFIL’s headquarters in Naqoura, directly hitting it and causing them to fall. The injuries are fortunately, this time, not serious, but they remain in hospital.

IDF soldiers also fired on UN position (UNP) 1-31 in Labbouneh, hitting the entrance to the bunker where peacekeepers were sheltering, and damaging vehicles and a communications system. An IDF drone was observed flying inside the UN position up to the bunker entrance.

Yesterday, IDF soldiers deliberately fired at and disabled the position’s perimeter-monitoring cameras. They also deliberately fired on UNP 1-32A in Ras Naqoura, where regular Tripartite meetings were held before the conflict began, damaging lighting and a relay station.

Israel has been pressuring UNIFIL to move away from the Blue Line for over a week now. UNIFIL has been patrolling the U.N.-monitored "Blue Line" separating Lebanon and Israel and the disputed territory in between since 2006 under U.N. resolution 1701. Within the last week, UNIFIL has rejected requests to leave. Meanwhile, Irish blue hats in a nearby outpost have been apparently threatened with evacuation, according to Irish President Michael Higgins, but as of today say they are digging in despite the "close proximity" of IDF troops.

UNIFIL said in its statement that "any deliberate attack on peacekeepers is a grave violation of international humanitarian law and of Security Council resolution 1701."

One shouldn't expect an apology anytime soon. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the United Nations a "swamp of anti-semitic bile" in his General Assembly speech last month. Furthermore, the Israeli military has shown no concern for red lines when it comes to distinguishing between enemy and civilian, killing a record number of healthcare and aid workers, and journalists in the last year. Its expanded operations into Lebanon this month have been illuminating in this regard. In one three-day period alone, 40 firefighters, paramedics, and health care workers were killed in Israeli airstrikes, according to the Lebanese health ministry.

Violence against U.N. peacekeepers is rare, with spikes in these events lately occurring amid the turmoil in places like Mali and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Israel is not listening to the U.N., that is clear. The United States is the only voice it may listen to regarding red lines, like not declaring war on international peacekeepers that you agreed should be there, unmolested, for the better part of the last 20 years (though Israel will say it is UNIFIL's fault Hezbollah has continued to arm up, a violation of 1701, that doesn't give them the right to fire tank mortars at them).

Unfortunately the Biden administration has yet to intercede on this front. There is no State Department briefing today but we will update if and when the White House has anything to say on the matter.

Thanks to our readers and supporters, Responsible Statecraft has had a tremendous year. A complete website overhaul made possible in part by generous contributions to RS, along with amazing writing by staff and outside contributors, has helped to increase our monthly page views by 133%! In continuing to provide independent and sharp analysis on the major conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the tumult of Washington politics, RS has become a go-to for readers looking for alternatives and change in the foreign policy conversation. 

 

We hope you will consider a tax-exempt donation to RS for your end-of-the-year giving, as we plan for new ways to expand our coverage and reach in 2025. Please enjoy your holidays, and here is to a dynamic year ahead!


UNIFIL peacekeeper Laura Rozzoni preparing for a patrol along the Blue Line in south Lebanon. (UN pic)


UNIFIL peacekeeper Laura Rozzoni preparing for a patrol along the Blue Line in south Lebanon. (UN pic)

Analysis | QiOSK
war profit
Top image credit: Andrew Angelov via shutterstock.com

War drives revenue increases for world's top arms dealers

QiOSK

Revenues at the world’s top 100 global arms and military services producing companies totaled $632 billion in 2023, a 4.2% increase over the prior year, according to new data released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The largest increases were tied to ongoing conflicts, including a 40% increase in revenues for Russian companies involved in supplying Moscow’s war on Ukraine and record sales for Israeli firms producing weapons used in that nation’s brutal war on Gaza. Revenues for Turkey’s top arms producing companies also rose sharply — by 24% — on the strength of increased domestic defense spending plus exports tied to the war in Ukraine.

keep readingShow less
Biden Putin Zelenskyy
Top Photo: Biden (left) meets with Russian President Putin (right). Ukrainian President Zelenskyy sits in between.

Diplomacy Watch: Will South Korea give weapons to Ukraine?

QiOSK

On Wednesday, a Ukrainian delegation led by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov met with South Korean officials, including President Yoon Suk Yeol. The AP reported that the two countries met to discuss ways to “cope with the security threat posed by the North Korean-Russian military cooperation including the North’s troop dispatch.”

During a previous meeting in October, Ukrainian President Volodomir Zelenskyy said he planned to present a “detailed request to Seoul for arms support including artillery and air defense systems.”

keep readingShow less
Masoud Pezeshkian
Top image credit: Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian meets with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi in Tehran, Iran November 14, 2024. Iran's Presidency/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS

'Max pressure' 2.0 on Iran could trigger a nuclear crisis

Middle East

In less two months the second Trump administration will begin its work and, as with other administrations over the past four decades, one of the most important foreign policy issues it will face will be Iran, its nuclear program, and its relations to the so-called “axis of resistance” that consists of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, armed Shiite groups in Iraq, and the remnants of the Palestinian resistance forces.

The national security team that the president-elect has nominated consists mainly of hardline Iran hawks. Many of them have spoken in the past about the possibility or necessity of bombing Iran to stop its nuclear program, if not to overthrow the regime.

keep readingShow less

Election 2024

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.