False Alarm or Hezbollahmania? ‘Israel’ Fires Phosphorous Shells at Lebanese Border During Alleged Security Incident

False Alarm or Hezbollahmania? ‘Israel’ Fires Phosphorous Shells at Lebanese Border During Alleged Security Incident

By Staff

It is perhaps that the ‘Israeli’ military’s observation department has stopped functioning well ever since the Zionist regime assassinated a Hezbollah member near Damascus Airport, or the ‘Israeli’ military has been diagnosed with a new severe Hezbollah monomania.

In the latest worth-mocking incident, the ‘Israeli’ occupation military claimed that a ‘security incident’ has been taking place along the Lebanese border late on Tuesday, and started firing phosphorus bombs at Lebanese territories in the southern towns of Houla and Mays al-Jabal, al-Manar TV correspondent reported.

Relatively, eyewitnesses also said the Zionist side had fired dozens of illumination flares at border villages in southern Lebanon over what the regime claimed was a “security-related incident.”

For its part, the Zionist media initially claimed that the firing was amid concerns over a possible infiltration near ‘Menara’ settlement in the Upper Galilee area, located near the Lebanese border and the ‘Israeli’-occupied side of Syria’s Golan.

The firing of more than 30 flares was followed by orders compelling ‘Israeli’ settlers in five settlements to stay at their places.

‘Israeli’ Channel 12 television network confirmed the report and underlined that the incident took place “as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on vacation in the north.”

Lebanese media also said Zionist aircraft had been spotted after violating the country’s airspace in the south.

During the past several weeks, the occupied territories have been on alert over the possibility of a retaliatory attack by Lebanon’s Hezbollah resistance movement after one of its members was martyred in an ‘Israeli’ aggression on the Syrian soil last month.

Ali Kamel Mohsen was martyred during an ‘Israeli’ attack near the Syrian capital of Damascus on July 20, according to a statement by Hezbollah.

Hezbollah said at the time that a response to the deadly aggression was “inevitable,” which led to the deployment of more troops by the ‘Israeli’ regime to the north of the occupied territories.

The Zionist regime claimed a week later that its forces had thwarted an effort by Hezbollah fighters to infiltrate into the occupied territories through Shebaa farms, an allegation firmly denied by Hezbollah.

Hezbollah said all ‘Israeli’ claims about border clashes with the resistance movement’s fighters were fake and aimed to boost the morale of ‘Israeli’ occupation forces by fabricating fictitious victories.

Hezbollah had vowed in the past to retaliate for any of its members that were martyred by ‘Israeli’ forces.

The resistance group fired a barrage of anti-tank missiles into the occupied territories in September last year after two of its members were martyred in an ‘Israeli’ aggression near Damascus.

Related Video

Related Articles

Hezbollah publishes first photos of downed Israeli drone


BEIRUT, LEBANON (4:00 P.M.) – On Sunday, Hezbollah’s military media published pictures of the Israeli drone that was shot down on Saturday afternoon.

The drone was reportedly shot down while it was flying near the Lebanese town of Aita Al-Shaab.

Hezbollah said the drone had entered Lebanese airspace was capturing images of the area before it was shot down by their forces.

Hezbollah military media
Hezbollah military media
Hezbollah military media

The Israeli army later confirmed that a drone belonging to its forces had fallen over Lebanese territory.


Hezbollah Downs Israeli Drone in South Lebanon

المقاومة الاسلامية أسقطت طائرة صهيونية مسيرة اخترقت الأجواء اللبنانية
المقاومة الاسلامية أسقطت طائرة صهيونية مسيرة اخترقت الأجواء اللبنانية

August 23, 2020

Hezbollah announced on Saturday it has downed an Israeli drone in the southern town of Ayta Al-Shaab.

In a statement issued late Saturday, Hezbollah Media Relations Office announced that the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon has downed an Israeli drone over the border town of Ayta Al-Shaab.

“The drone is now in the hands of Islamic Resistance fighters,” the statement added.

Israeli occupation army confirmed a drone was downed in south Lebanon, but added there “was no concern of information being leaked.”

An Israeli drone was downed as it was in a ‘routine activity’ earlier during the day at the border with Lebanon, occupation army spokesman said in a statement.

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said last year in September that every Israeli drone which will violate the Lebanese airspace is a target for the Resistance, following an attack by Israeli drones laden with explosive materials on a media office belonging to the Lebanese party.

Source: Al-Manar English Website



South Front


Iran,  the 220 Branch of the Syrian Military Intelligence Directorate and Hezbollah are together  establishing a new force to monitor the situation on the contact line with Israeli forces near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, local sources claim.

According to reports, the new force will be mostly made up of personnel of the Syrian Army and local fighters from the Golan Regiment armed group. Mamoun Jridah and Hazem Kabul, two local figures who are close to Hezbollah, are reportedly recruiting fighters to this new force. At least 175 fighters have signed up, so far. The force will also be tasked with contributing security efforts in the area and preventing Israeli sabotage activities there.

Despite the attempts of Israel to deter Iranian influence in central and southern Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Iranian-backed groups maintain a significant presence in the southern Syrian provinces. Over the past weeks, the situation has become especially dangerous following the destabilization of Lebanon, the Israeli military buildup on the contact lines with Lebanon and Syria, and the increased number of incidents between Israeli and Iranian-backed forces.

If the regional situation continues escalating, it’s easy to expect that the southern part of Syria and southern Lebanon will become the hot points of the confrontation between Israel and the Hezbollah-Iran bloc.

Late on August 12, the Turkish military and its proxies in northeast Syria launched several small-scale attacks on positions of the Syrian Army and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in al-Hasakah and Raqqa provinces. Turkish forces clashed with army troops near the towns of al-Qasmiyah and al-Rashidiyah, and with the SDF near the town of Kur Hasan. Turkish forces also shelled the Ain Issa refugee camp in northern Raqqa. Fire erupted in several farmlands bordering the camp. There are no confirmed reports of casualties resulting from this series of incidents.

Since late June, Turkish forces have increased the number of artillery strike and tactical attacks on the Syrian Army and the SDF in northeastern Syria. These ceasefire violations go contrary to the agreements reached by Ankara with the US and Russia. Some sources even speculate that the Erdogan government is preparing for a resumption of full-scale military operation in the northeast.

ISIS ambushed a convoy of Liwa al-Quds, a pro-government Palestinian militia, near the town of al-Tabni in southern Deir Ezzor. After this, terrorists also detonated several explosive devices in the path of reinforcements from the 4th Armoured Division as it deployed to the area. A truck and a SUV of pro-government forces were destroyed in the attacks. Depending on the sources, from 1 to 3 pro-government fighters died. ISIS always intensifies their attacks on government forces during an increase of tensions between Turkey and the US-Israeli alliance.

An Attack on Edward Said’s Legacy


by Lawrence Davidson

Lawrence Davidson | Author | Common Dreams

Part I—Meeting Caroline Glick

I traveled to Israel and the Occupied Territories in the early 2000s with the progressive group Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. We made an effort to gain insight into most of the players in the conflict, and so a series of interviews was arranged with members of the Israeli right wing. I remember that one of them was Caroline Glick, an ardent American-Israeli Zionist. She lectured us on the positive personal relationships allegedly prevalent between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. 

It was an interesting and somewhat embarrassing experience. Glick and I are both American and both Jewish. Growing up, I had this understanding that American plus Jewish always meant being anti-racist. To be so was, in my mind, the prime lesson of modern Jewish history. What being anti-racist meant to Glick was unclear. She spent the better part of an hour giving us a defense of Israeli-Jewish treatment of Palestinians based on the classic “some of my best friends are Black” (read Palestinian) defense. In the words of the New York Times journalist John Eligon, this line of argument “has so often been relied on by those facing accusations of racism that it has become shorthand for weak denials of bigotry—a punch line about the absence of thoughtfulness and rigor in our conversations about racism.” And so it was with Glick, who explained that she, and many other Israeli Jews, had Palestinians who do small jobs for them and are treated well, and that this proves a lack of cultural and societal racism. It was such a vacuous argument that I remember feeling embarrassed for her. 

Things haven’t gotten much better when it comes to Ms. Glick’s worldview. She is now a senior columnist at Israel Hayom (Israel Today, a pro-Netanyahu newspaper owned by the family of Sheldon Anderson) and contributor to such questionable U.S. outlets as Breitbart NewsShealso directs the Israeli Security Project at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. There can be little doubt that she continues to see the world through the distorting lens of a particularly hardline variant of Zionism.  

Part II—Glick’s Attack on Edward Said’s Legacy 

Recently, Caroline Glick launched an attack on the legacy of the late American-Palestinian scholar and teacher Edward Said. Entitled “Edward Said, Prophet of Political Violence in America,” it was recently (7 July 2020) published in the U.S. by Newsweek—a news magazine with an increasingly pro-Zionist editorial stand. As it turns out, one cannot find a better example of how ideology can distort one’s outlook to the point of absurdity. Below is an analysis of Glick’s piece in a point-by-point fashion. Ultimately, the ideological basis for her argument will become clear. 

1. Glick begins by resurrecting a twenty-year-old event. “On July 3, 2000, an incident occurred along the Lebanese border with Israel that, at the time, seemed both bizarre and … unimportant. That day, Columbia University professor Edward Said was photographed on the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese side of the border with Israel throwing a rock at an Israel Defense Forces watchtower 30 feet away.” She goes on to describe this act as “Said’s rock attack on Israel” and the “soldiers protecting their border.”

We need some context to put all of this in perspective: Israel is an expansionist state, and the original Zionist aim (as presented to the Paris Peace Conference following World War I) was to incorporate parts of southern Lebanon into what is now Israel. Southern Lebanon also briefly became a staging area for Palestinian retaliatory attacks into Israel. Thus, Israel invaded Lebanon multiple times only to be forced to withdraw in the face of resistance led by Hezbollah, a strong Lebanese Shiite militia in control of much of southern Lebanon.  

Said relates that during his 2000 visit to the Lebanese border with his family, he threw a pebble (not a “rock”) at a deserted Israeli watchtower (no Israeli soldiers were “defending their border”).  Said saw this as a symbolic act of defiance against Israeli occupation. Over the years stone throwing by Palestinian youth had become just such a symbolic act. And, it was from their example that Said might have taken his cue.

2. However, Glick wants to draw highly questionable consequences from Said’s act. She tells us that “with the hindsight of 20 years, it was a seminal moment and a harbinger for the mob violence now taking place in many parts of America.” By the way, the “mob violence” in America she is referring to is the mass protests against police brutality that followed the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police on 25 May 2020.

3. Now that sounds a bit odd. How does Glick manage this segue from Edward Said’s symbolic stone toss in the year 2000 to nationwide inner-city rebellions against police brutality in 2020 America? Here is the contorted sequence she offers: 

a. Said was a terrorist because he was an influential member of the alleged “terrorist organization,” the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). “Terrorist organization” is a standard Zionist descriptor of most Palestinian organizations. Actually, the PLO is the legally recognized representative of the Palestinian people and as such has carried on both a armed and a diplomatic struggle to liberate Palestine from Israeli Occupation. In 1993, the PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist. This made little difference to the Zionist right wing who, like Glick, continued to use the terrorist tag for propaganda purposes. It is to be noted that all liberation movements are considered to be “terrorist” by those they fight against. And, indeed both sides in such a struggle usually act in this fashion on occasion. Certainly, Israel is no innocent in this regard. 

b. For Glick, Said’s alleged terrorist connection transforms his “rock attack” into a terrorist act. This is simply an ad hominem assertion on Glick’s part. There is no evidence that Said ever engaged in any act, including the tossing of stones, that can sanely be characterized as terrorism.

c. Glick tells us that, at the same time Said was ‘committing a terrorist attack’ on Israel, he was also “the superstar of far-Left intellectuals.” It is hard to know what she means here by “far-Left.” It is seems to be another ad hominem slander. Said was a scholar of Comparative Literature and, when not in the classroom, he advocated for the political and human rights of oppressed Palestinians—how “far-Left” is that?

d. Nonetheless, Glick goes on to assert that as a “far-Left” academic, Said waged a “nihilistic” and “anti-intellectual” offensive against Western thought. He did so in a well-known work entitled Orientalism published in 1978.

What does Orientalism actually say? Using mostly 19th century literary and artistic examples, the book documents the prevailing Western perception of the Near East and North Africa, which stands in for the Orient. This perception reflects a basically bipolar worldview—one which, according to Said, reserved for the West a superior image of science and reason, prosperity and high culture, and for the Orient an inferior somewhat mysterious and effeminate image of the “other” fated for domination by the West. Over time this view became pervasive in the West and influenced not only literary and artistic views of the Orient, but also impacted political, historical, anthropological and other non-fictional interpretations. Having helped create a superior sense of self, this orientalist perception served as a rationale for Western world dominance. It should be said that whether one agrees with every one of Said’s details or not, there is no doubt his well researched and documented work has made most scholars more aware of their biases.

e. Glick refuses to see Orientalism asjust an influential academic work. Instead, in what appears to be a pattern of illogical jumps, she claims that “in Orientalism, Said characterized all Western—and particularly American—scholarship on the Arab and Islamic worlds as one big conspiracy theory” designed to justify empire. This then is the heart of Said’s alleged “nihilistic” repudiation of Western scholarship. She particularly points to Said’s claim that “From the Enlightenment period through the present every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist and almost totally ethnocentric.” While this is a far-reaching generalization, it basically reflects an equally pervasive, very real Western cultural bias. What Glick describes as a “conspiracy theory” is Said’s scholarly demonstration of how that bias has expressed itself. And, it should be noted that such pervasive biases are not uniquely American nor even Western. Chinese, Japanese, Arab/Muslim, Hindu and Jewish civilizations have their own variants of such biases. Yet, it is Said’s effort to expose and ameliorate the orientalism of the West that seems to madden Caroline Glick.

f. For Glick, Said’s suggestion that both past as well as many present scholars have culturally biased points of view of the Orient becomes an accusation that any “great scholar” with a classical Western worldview “is worse than worthless. If he is a white American, he is an agent of evil.” Glick is now building a real head of steam and her account becomes more and more grotesque. She now claims that Said’s work is “intellectual nihilism.” How so? Because it “champions narrative over evidence.” What Glick is implying here is that Said’s work is an anti-Western screed presented without evidence. This is demonstrably wrong, but nonetheless provides a platform for Glick’s further assertion that Said’s fantastical narrative is told in order to “manipulate students to engage in political violence against the United States.”

Part III—What Is This All About?

Caroline Glick makes repeated illogical jumps. As egregious as these are they actually point the way to her larger ideological agenda.

  1. Said is a terrorist because he opposes Israel and supports the Palestinians. Participation in the PLO is her proof of this. 
  2. Because Said is a terrorist, his throwing of a stone at the southern Lebanese border is a terrorist attack against Israel and its defense forces. 
  3. Somehow, Said’s throwing the stone was also “a harbinger for the mob violence now taking place in many parts of America.” The connector here is Said’s tossing of an intellectual “rock”—his thesis presented in Orientalism.
  4. Just as his “rock attack” was terroristic, so Said’s book, Orientalism, is itself an act of terrorism as well as a “nihilistic” project. 
  5. It is all these nasty things rolled into one because it calls into question established cultural assumptions that had long underpinned colonialism and imperialism, and which also just happens to underpin Israel’s claim to legitimacy.
  6. But there is more. Glick tells us, “Said’s championing of the Palestinian war against Israel was part of a far wider post-colonialist crusade he waged against the United States. The purpose of his scholarship was to deny American professors the right to study and understand the world [in an orientalist fashion] by delegitimizing them as nothing but racists and imperialists.”
  7. And finally, “Orientalism formed the foundation of a much broader campaign on campuses to delegitimize the United States as a political entity steeped in racism.”

Part IV—Conclusion

Glick’s attack on Edward Said’s legacy is beset with leaps of illogic. So let me conclude this analysis with my own leap, hopefully a logical one, to an explanation of what may be Glick’s larger agenda. Glick is attempting to turn the ideological clock back to a time before decolonization. Specifically, she wishes to resurrect an overall acceptance of Western colonialism as a benevolent endeavor whereby progress and civilization was spread by a superior culture. 

Why would she want to do this? Because if we all believe this proposition, then Israel can be seen as a legitimate and normal state. After all, Israel is the last of the colonial settler states—the imposition of Western culture into the Orient. It rules over millions of Palestinian Arabs as the result of a European invasion made “legal” by a colonial document, the Balfour Declaration, and its acceptance by a pro-colonial League of Nations. Our post-colonial age in which Edward Said is a “superstar intellectual,” is seen as a constant threat to Zionist Israel’s legitimacy. 

Edward Said’s legacy provides a strong theoretical foundation for understanding why the Western imperialists thought and acted as they did, and hence helps both Western and non-Western peoples to confront their own modern historical situation. However, Glick cannot see any of this except through the Zionist perspective. Thus, Said’s legacy is just part of an anti-Israeli conspiracy—an attack on those scholars who support the legitimacy of an orientalist point of view and of the Zionist state. 

She also suggests that Said’s undoing of historically accepted biases lets loose the “mob violence” seen in the U.S. There is no evidence for this, but it may be Glick’s  roundabout way of undermining student support for Palestinian rights on American campuses. 

Ultimately, what Glick is interested in is preserving the image of Israel as a Western democratic enclave in an otherwise uncivilized sea of Arab and Islamic barbarians. That fits right into the traditional orientalist belief system and justifies the continuing U.S.-Israeli alliance. Said has successfully called that perspective into question. Hence Glick’s assault on his legacy. 

Finally, Glick’s present attack on Said, and her attempt to tie his work into the protests that followed George Floyd’s murder, shows how frightened the defenders of one racist state, Zionist Israel, become when their principle ally, the United States, comes under attack for racist practices. Said as a “superstar” foe of all racism becomes the lighting rod for that fear. 

What happened —and didn’t happen— at the Israel-Lebanon border?

By Sayed Hasan for The Saker blog

On the night of Sunday, July 19th, airstrikes hit Damascus International Airport. Though Israel didn’t claim responsibility for them, sticking to their longtime “zone of denial” policy, no one doubts they were the perpetrators. On Monday, the Syrian Army announced 7 soldiers were injured. It could have been one strike among hundreds of others, soon forgotten because of the lack of Syrian retaliatory measure. But the day after, Hezbollah announced the martyrdom of one of its combatants, Ali Kamel Mohsen, killed during the Israeli raid. As an Israeli commentator on Arab affairs put it in a tweet, this announcement “certainly changes the picture”. In fact, it is an understatement: it turned a tactical success into a PR disaster for the Netanyahu government, and a nightmare for the Israeli’s Army Northern Command and settlers living close to the Lebanese border. Because as everyone knew, a Hezbollah retaliation was inevitable.

We cannot understand what is happening now if we don’t put it in its broader context. Hezbollah’s rules of engagement against Israel in Syria were spelled out in January 2015, after Israel targeted two of their vehicles in Syria’s Quneitra region, killing 6 Hezbollah fighters (including Jihad Moghniyeh, son of Hezbollah’s martyred commander Imad Moghniyeh), along with an Iranian IRGC colonel. Back then, Nasrallah didn’t make any speech until the retaliation, which came out 10 days later, on January 28, when Hezbollah destroyed 3 vehicles in an Israeli convoy patrolling the occupied Shebaa farms, killing 2 to 5 soldiers —the sources differ— and wounding seven others (Israel retaliated by symbolic strikes, harming no Lebanese life or property but killing a Spanish UN soldier). Here is what Nasrallah stated in a speech two days later: https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7v64pq

“The Resistance operation happened in broad daylight (just before noon), at the highest state of alert of the Israeli enemy, who until now is incapable of understanding how it happened. […] Because they are cowards and not (real) men, and because “They will not fight you (even) together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls” (Quran, 59, 14), they struck us treacherously and didn’t dare to claim responsibility for the attack. As for Hezbollah fighters, because they are (real) men who don’t fear death, they attacked them frontally, face to face, and we claimed responsibility for the attack immediately after it happened. […] My message today is the following: from now on, any Hezbollah cadre or commander, any young Hezbollah (combatant) who will be assassinated (in Lebanon or in Syria), we will blame Israel for it, and we will consider it our right to retaliate anywhere, anytime and in any way we see fit.”

This equation was put in practice and even broadened in August 2019, after Yasser Dhaher and Hassan Zbib, two Hezbollah combatants, were killed in an Israeli airstrike in Damascus suburbs, and an Israeli drone attack against Beirut’s southern suburb, a Hezbollah stronghold, was foiled. Here is what Nasrallah stated in an August 25th speech:

“We will retaliate from Lebanon, and not (necessarily) from the Shebaa farms! I declare to the Israeli soldiers at the border tonight: wait for us against the (separation) wall (standing) on one foot and a half (be ready to flee for your lives)! Wait for us on one foot and a half! Wait for us (because we’ll certainly come at you)! In one day, two days, three days, four days… Just wait for us!”

While Hezbollah used to attack Israel exclusively in the Shebaa farms, a Lebanese territory occupied by Israel, they now vowed to strike anywhere, a dramatic development which put tremendous pressure on the Israeli side, for whom any human loss is a national disaster. Drastic & unprecedented measures were taken to foil Hezbollah’s retaliation: Israeli forces didn’t “hole up” in their bases as Nasrallah had advised them to, but went as far as evacuating all their positions close to Lebanon, in a width of 5 to 7 kilometers, and along the whole length of the border line. All Israeli defenses were activated. Strict security measures were taken to evacuate some settlements and forbid the remaining settlers to perform most daily activities —video footage showed empty streets & closed shops, most people being holed up in their house all day long.https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/x7kl8ej

For 8 days, the mighty Israeli army appeared as the “spider web” it was, frightened and terrorized, its border barracks and outposts left deserted —as was shown by an RT crew who got inside—, its vehicles abandoned with dummy soldiers inside, with tanks scattered everywhere for days hoping to lure Hezbollah to attack an empty target (see all security measures Israel took detailed in Nasrallah’s speech back then).

Psychological warfare, perfectly mastered by Hezbollah, is a key element to understand what is happening —and not happening— right now, even before we speak of the retaliation itself. As Nasrallah put it in his 2019, September 2nd speech,

“We warned the enemy that he had to expect us (any time) from now on. This is a strength point of the Resistance. We could have remained silent, refrained from threatening (Israel of an imminent retaliation), not revealing our intentions, keeping quiet as we say, for 1, 2 or 3 days, then hit them by surprise. The military know that one of the most important aspects of a military operation is the element of surprise. But we have not done so, because our fight against the Zionist entity has a major psychological component, affecting the morale and soul of the enemy (which we strive to undermine). So we told them from the beginning to wait for us, because we were coming. In itself, it is an enormous challenge issued by the Resistance.[…] [This high alert of the enemy and the evacuation of the border outposts] are part of the punishment (we inflicted on Israel). Before we retaliated with our military operation, some people were (ironically) asking: where is your response? But (this terror situation on the Israeli side) was already a punishment and a retaliation. […] [The whole world saw the staggering difference between] our good Lebanese people (who) was normally moving in border areas, whether in villages or fields, and led a completely normal life, [while Israeli settlers were forbidden to approach “their” fields in occupied Palestine and where holed up in their houses].”

Thus, Israel seemed humiliated and defeated even before the retaliation came. It did happen on September 1st, when a moving Israeli military vehicle was destroyed in broad daylight by two anti-tank missiles near Avivim barracks, killing or wounding its occupants. While Israel had promised to hit Lebanon hard and return it to the Stone Age via all channels (diplomatic, media, etc.) in case of retaliation, the IDF didn’t hit back at all, merely firing “defensive phosphorous strikes aimed at building a smokescreen to protect themselves from further strikes”, as Nasrallah put it. Israeli TV channels showed the evacuation of a seemingly badly wounded soldier by helicopter, and his arrival at a Haifa hospital.


But Netanyahu claimed there was not as much as a scratch in the Israeli side, and that everything had been staged in order to convince Hezbollah they had avenged their martyrs and avoid any further escalation. While this seems like a PR stunt aimed at damage control (especially when we consider that at the same time, Israeli media reported that a soldier stationed in the North was severely injured by a bizarre game of stone-throwing, suggesting a ludicrous cover-up only made possible by the strict military censorship), Nasrallah didn’t rule it out, and stated in a September 10th speech:

“Everything that was done by the Israelis in recent days, for example the Israeli dummy soldiers (in their vehicles), this shows the weakness of the Israeli army. And when things have come to what they called “the deception operation”, in which they allegedly staged the evacuation of soldiers with fake injuries that they carried on stretchers, covered in fake blood, and would thus have deceived Hezbollah (into believing that his goal was reached, to prevent him from launching new strikes). Let us imagine that you really tricked us: all that would prove is, in few words, that your renowned legendary and invincible army has turned into a Hollywood army, which makes movies for the cinema, because it became helpless on the ground, incapable, weak, fearful and cowardly, withdrawing from the border to a width of 5 to 7 kilometers (for fear of the promised response by Hezbollah.”

It would be difficult to conclude that this 2019 round ended in anything but a crushing defeat for Israel, be it on the military, psychological or PR level. Though all of this is little known to the Western public, where the media is but an echo chamber of the Israeli Army’s propaganda (even RT, Sputnik and most alternative media often take their claims at face value), there is no doubt that it was strongly present in the mind of Israel’s political & military leaders when they heard of a Hezbollah operative killed in their latest strike on Syria ten days ago. Israeli media reported the high alert status of the Army in the North, where military drills were canceled, reinforcements sent and units & defenses put in high alert in the expectation of an imminent Hezbollah attack. The usual huff and puff about Israel’s forceful response in case of an attack was heard from Netanyahu & Gantz. But as Israel is in the eye of the storm because of the coronavirus crisis & current civil unrest and daily & violent protests against Netanyahu, another round against Hezbollah, Israel’s most dreaded enemy, is the last thing they’d want. That’s why Israel took the unprecedented step of sending an apology letter to Hezbollah via the UN representative in Lebanon, as was reported by Lebanese & Israeli media, and confirmed by Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary General Naim Qassem, though the latter wouldn’t speak of its contents, and only stated that Hezbollah didn’t and wouldn’t reply to it.

Commenting on this development, Senior Lebanese political analyst Anis Naqqash, closely linked to Hezbollah, stated the following in an interview to Al-Mayadeen on July 26:

Anis Naqqash: This letter is the greatest proof of Israel’s weakness and fear of Hezbollah’s response. (Recall that in the past) Israel slaughtered (civilians) by the hundreds, and did not apologize or send (explanatory) letters. Israel committed aggressions and occupied territories, and did not apologize or send (explanatory) letters. (But) today, fearing Hezbollah’s reaction, Israel sends an urgent letter via the UN as an apology, because they are afraid of the reaction.

First, the fact that Hezbollah did not make the contents of the letter public helps to make it irrelevant. If they had published it, they would have given the impression of wanting to make public what Israel said. Second, the fact that Hezbollah did not respond to the letter confuses Israel. Despite their apologies and asking for forgiveness, what is Hezbollah’s response? Absolute silence. This leaves Israel in a state of great disarray. (Hezbollah) has also confirmed (via its Deputy Secretary General) that Hezbollah will do what they have to do when the time comes, which also leaves more to fear (in Israel).

Therefore, today Israel is clearly in a state of continued confusion and fear, and the statements of Sheikh Naim (Qassem) today will not allow them to sleep peacefully, on the contrary, they are even more worried (after hearing him).

Journalist: Israel therefore stands on one foot and a half (Nasrallah’s formula to designate the fear and terror of Israeli soldiers, ready to flee at full speed at the slightest alarm) without even the Hezbollah Secretary General needing to speak (and warn them of an imminent response)?

Anis Naqqash: The last time he warned them, but this time they (already) know what to expect. It’s like an unruly pupil standing up and facing the wall on his own every time he does something silly. Today Israel stands up and faces the wall, and does so on one foot and a half, taking (drastic) precautions. No one can say if the response will come before the Eid-el-Kebir (on July 31st) or after, or even if the response will take the Eid festival into account or not. Everything is possible on the part of the Resistance.

Journalist: But isn’t the fact that Hezbollah has not made public the contents of the letter a sign of seriousness, respect and responsibility given that it is an official letter that has been delivered via the United Nations? Isn’t that an important sign (of maturity)?

Anis Naqqash: This can only be understood by comparison with what the Arab leaders and Presidents, and even the former leaders of the Palestinian resistance factions, used to do when they received such marks of attention from the (Israeli) enemy, or from the United States or Europe. The mere fact that one of these countries paid attention to them, made a mere gesture of consideration towards them, they were quick to show it to everyone (as a sign of pride), (boasting) that they had received a glance, a letter from such or such country, an apology, etc. Their opponents saw them as eager for any sign of recognition from the enemy.

As far as Hezbollah is concerned, it is quite the opposite. Hezbollah does not attach any importance to the enemy and its stances. Of course, they study them closely (one has to know its enemy very well), but they do not give them this importance; they don’t manifest this avidity (towards any sign of respect from the enemy). Hezbollah doesn’t rush to their people telling them, “Look, look, they’ve apologized to us!” The confidence of Hezbollah’s grassroots in the Resistance is much higher than that, and they know Israel is afraid of it regardless of what they can say in any letter. This is why Hezbollah does not attach importance to it and does not bother to respond to it, making it clear that for them, whether Israel sent the letter or not, it is the same thing and it will not change anything (about the inevitable response). We have to analyze this from the point of view of psychological warfare, of politics, in order to correctly assess the strategic capacities of the Resistance with regard to political, security and media battles. […]

While Israel’s “apologies” to Hezbollah are pathetic and can prevent in no way the inevitable retaliation, it must be emphasized that Israel certainly does everything it can to avoid hitting Hezbollah operatives when it strikes Syria —and therefore tries hard not to kill anyone at all—, going so far as warning them before hitting one of their vehicles, as we can see in this video from last April.

Israel was therefore left with the crushing pressure of the unknown, especially that Hezbollah didn’t comment on what it would do or not do, Naim Qassem merely stating that the rules of engagement previously stated were still in force, and that the coming days would answer everyone’s questions. There were no doubts in Israel & Lebanon that an imminent Hezbollah retaliation was coming. The pressure & nervousness —and downright panic— at the border are probably the cause of the death of an Israeli soldier on July 22 when his car crashed in the Shebaa farms, near the Lebanese border. As a Koweiti put it on Twitter, “Hezbollah’s silence is sometimes more powerful and painful to the Zionist enemy than their missiles, because they live hours, days and weeks in a state of fear, terror and high nervousness. Silence is a destructive weapon of psychological warfare against the Israeli entity, both at the political and psychological levels.” Avigdor Lieberman, former Israeli Defense Minister, stated that “I am still worried because the North is paralyzed by the killing of one single Hezbollah member in Damascus. Unfortunately, Nasrallah proved that he does what he says, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

In this extremely tense situation, on July 27th, the Israeli Army, parroted by the Western media (both mainstream and alternative), stated that it had foiled a Hezbollah attempt to infiltrate the Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms, killing and wounding the operatives in the following skirmish while suffering no death or injuries itself. Later reports made no mention of Hezbollah casualties, alleging that their lives were willfully spared as a de-escalation measure. Here is the account of the “battle” by Haaretz’s military correspondent Amos Harel:

“While some of the details are still shrouded in fog, it’s clear that the IDF forces – soldiers from the Nahal Brigade, the elite Egoz unit and a tank crew – weren’t taken by surprise and were well prepared for their mission. An IDF lookout spotted the Hezbollah cell while it was still moving toward Har Dov (Shebaa Farms). When the cell had made it about 20 meters into Israel, in a hilly, wooded area where there’s no border fence, tanks and machine guns opened fire at it from a few hundred meters away.The Shi’ite militiamen quickly left the area.

There have been no reports of them taking casualties.

They entered Israel not that far from an IDF outpost and a road that serves troops in the area. (Har Dov is always closed to civilian traffic.) Their goal was presumably to carry out an attack – via sniper fire or bombs – on the IDF forces posted there. But given what has been reported about how the cell operated, the attempt does not seem to have been particularly sophisticated.

Thick vegetation makes it hard to hit an enemy moving cautiously even in broad daylight. The IDF has refused to say whether the soldiers were ordered to shoot to kill, or whether the plan was always to drive off the Hezbollah cell without causing casualties.

Nevertheless, there are fairly solid grounds for assuming that Israel deliberately decided on the latter course of action. Any such decision would have had to be made at the highest levels.

Had Hezbollah suffered losses in the incident, it might have felt compelled to mount an additional retaliation, and that could have escalated the situation along the border. Thus what looks like a tie with no casualties appears to be very convenient for both sides.”

This scenario makes Israel look good: according to this report, not only did they successfully foil an attack, but they did it with a concern for enemy human lives in order to avoid an escalation. Hezbollah’s “unsophisticated” attack, for a change, is supposed to make its outcome more plausible, and more acceptable to the Party of God, who can go along with it, claim he retaliated somewhat and climb down the ladder. Thus, this alleged round would give a military & PR victory for Israel, while allowing Hezbollah to save face, and Netanyahu & Gantz wasted no time in collecting their medal and warning Nasrallah that he was “playing with fire”, and that any further Hezbollah operations against Israel “would be a mistake and would be followed by a harsh military response”. Interestingly, both Netanyahu and Gantz left directly after reading their short statement, without taking any questions from the journalists. One wonders why they wouldn’t enjoy their victory.

In reality, this story is very unlikely, as the Israeli media themselves were quick to point out. In an article titled ‘Was Mount Dov incident another Hollywood show for Hezbollah?’, the Jerusalem Post recalled the Avivim mascarade and asked:

“In this day and age, everything is filmed. So where is the footage of the infiltrators crossing into Israel? Where is the drone footage of the area at the time of the incident?”

The IDF stated that they had footage of the incident and were considering releasing it, but haven’t done so far, which adds to the skepticism. Even Naftali Bennett, former Defense Minister, seemed to indirectly deny that any skirmish happenned, stating to Israel’s Channel 13 that in the region of the incident, one can get the impression that something is moving while there is nothing at all.

As for Hezbollah, they denied that any skirmish had taken place in the following statement:

“It appears that the state of terror in which the Zionist occupation army and its settlers on the Lebanese border find themselves, the high alert status and the extreme concern over the Resistance’s reaction to the enemy crime which led to the martyrdom of our mujahid brother Ali Kamel Mohsen, as well as the enemy’s complete inability to know the intentions of the Resistance, all these factors made the enemy extremely nervous on the ground and in the media, and he behaves as someone afraid of his own shadow.

Everything that the enemy media claim about Israel thwarting an infiltration operation from Lebanese territory into occupied Palestine, as well as their claims that there were martyrs and wounded on the Resistance side as a result of the bombardments which took place near the occupation sites in the Shebaa farms, is absolutely not true. This is just a futile attempt to forge illusory & bogus victories.

The Islamic Resistance affirms that there has been no clash or shooting on its part in the events of the day so far. Rather, it was one single part, meaning the frightened, anxious and nervous (Israeli) enemy, who fired all the shots.

Our response to the martyrdom of our mujahedin brother Ali Kamel Mohsen, who found martyrdom in the Zionist aggression on the outskirts of Damascus International Airport, will inevitably come, and the Zionists have only to await punishment for their crimes.

Moreover, the strikes which took place today on the (Lebanese) village of Al-Habaria and hit a civilian’s house will not go unpunished.

The next few days will soon deliver their verdict (our response to all of this is imminent).

Victory comes only from Almighty God.

Islamic Resistance in Lebanon”

Even if it was a matter of Hezbollah’s word against Israel’s, given their respective PR record, it would be safe to trust Hezbollah’s account. In fact, the Israelis themselves believe Nasrallah more than their own leaders, as was shown by polls held in Israel, Hezbollah’s huge credibility being one of its great achievements —as Norman Finkelstein statedIsraeli leaders carefully scrutinize Nasrallah’s every word. Anyway, Israel has gained nothing from what is most likely a new PR stunt. Whether the incident started as a mistake of Israeli troops firing at inexistent Hezbollah combatants conjured by their panicked imagination (IDF soldiers are world-class cowards), or whether it was all staged from the beginning in order to claim a fake victory before the inevitable, real retaliation, it is safe to believe that no Hezbollah attack happened, and that Israel further humiliated & discredited itself with this umpteenth lie.

However, it would be a mistake to think that all this show was futile. First, Hezbollah stated for the first time that the retaliation was coming indeed, though it was pretty much a given anyway. Second, they now have two reasons to strike back: their combatant killed in Damascus, and the attack against a civilian house, which puts all the Israeli settlers in the line of fire. Thus, Israel went from a bad situation to an even worse one. Back in August 2019, Nasrallah had already stated that the failed drone attack against Beirut’s southern suburb meant that from now on, the settlers would be seen as fair game:

« I declare to all the inhabitants of northern Israel and everywhere in occupied Palestine: do not live (normally), do not be in peace, do not feel safe, and do not think for one second that Hezbollah will accept such a scenario (where he would suffer such attacks in his neighborhoods without retaliating against settlers). »

Hezbollah still refrained from attacking settlements back then, focusing on military targets, but the latest escalation, even if it was likely accidental, could very well change their mind.

The only remaining question is when and where Hezbollah’s retaliation will come, and how will it unfold? As surprise is a major component of Hezbollah’s strategy, it would be vain to speculate, even if one can think that Hezbollah will take its time, in order to keep the enemy on tenterhooks. But Nasrallah gave us an interesting hint in his ‘Hollywood Army’ Speech:

“O Hollywood army, the lesson we draw from this experience, if indeed it is real (it remains to be proven true that you tricked us), is that the next time, you invite us not be content to hit one vehicle or one place, but several vehicles and several positions, so as not to be fooled by new Hollywood movies. (This comedy simulating injuries so that we’d stop hitting you) is a demonstration of weakness and helplessness (and not a sign of strength or intelligence).”

Also, many wonder if Hezbollah’s inevitable retaliation can lead to a war. It is most unlikely, and this idea has been dismissed by Hezbollah Deputy Secretary General, though he stated that they were always ready for war. But the daily threats from Netanyahu or Gantz should fool no one: Israel’s bite has never been a match for its bark, and their threats towards Hezbollah always turned out to be a damp squib. Netanyahu boasted of having won an imaginary round only because he knew that he had already lost the real one at all levels —military, psychological, PR—, and that when the deterrence & rules of engagement between Hezbollah and Israel change, it is only at the latter’s expense.

Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.

“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” Hassan Nasrallah

Hezbollah denies carrying out attack on Israel, vows imminent retaliation

Date: 28 July 2020

Author: lecridespeuples

Source: Al-Manar, Hezbollah TV channel

Translation: resistancenews.org

Commenting on the events that took place today, July 27, 2020, in the occupied area of ​​the Shebaa Farms on the Lebanese border with occupied Palestine, and the information and statements released about these events, the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon (Hezbollah) released the following statement:

“It appears that the state of terror in which the Zionist occupation army and its settlers on the Lebanese border find themselves, the high alert status and the extreme concern over the Resistance’s reaction to the enemy crime which led to the martyrdom of our mujahid brother Ali Kamel Mohsen, as well as the enemy’s complete inability to know the intentions of the Resistance, all of these factors made the enemy extremely nervous on the ground and in the media, and he behaves considering that any wind blowing the bushes announces an (imminent) attack on him (Israelis are afraid of their own shadow).

Everything that the enemy media claim about Israel thwarting an infiltration operation from Lebanese territory into occupied Palestine, as well as their claims that there were martyrs and wounded on the Resistance side as a result of the bombardments which took place near the occupation sites in the Shebaa farms, is absolutely not true. This is just a futile attempt to forge illusory & bogus victories.

The Islamic Resistance affirms that there has been no clash or shooting on its part in the events of the day so far. Rather, it was one single part, meaning the frightened, anxious and nervous (Israeli) enemy, who fired all the shots (against imaginary targets).

Our response to the martyrdom of our mujahedin brother Ali Kamel Mohsen, who found martyrdom in the Zionist aggression on the outskirts of Damascus International Airport, will inevitably come, and the Zionists have only to await punishment for their crimes.

Moreover, the bombardments which took place today on the village of Al-Habaria and hit a civilian’s house will not go unpunished.

The next few days will soon deliver their verdict (our response to all of this is imminent).

Victory comes only from Almighty God.

Islamic Resistance in Lebanon”

See also Israeli strikes in Syria: fearing imminent retaliation, IDF sends apology letter to Hezbollah

Donate as little as you can to support this work and subscribe to the Newsletter to get around censorship.

“Any amount counts, because a little money here and there, it’s like drops of water that can become rivers, seas or oceans…” Hassan Nasrallah

The Lebanese Resistance Brigades: We Are Ready to Defend Lebanon

The Lebanese Resistance Brigades: We Are Ready to Defend Lebanon

By Latifa Al-Husseini

Beirut – Three years before the liberation of southern Lebanon, a group of patriots became determined to support the Islamic resistance. The epic operation of Jabal al-Rafi aroused a sense of enthusiasm and courage about fighting the aggressors until their expulsion.

أبطال عملية جبل الرفيع - من تاريخنا الجهادي - الوكالة العربية للأخبار

Forty days after the martyrdom of Sayyed Hadi Nasrallah, the Lbanese Resistance Brigades [the Saraya] was born to oppose the occupation. As the battles raged, the Saraya fought shoulder to shoulder with the Mujahideen of Hezbollah.

In 2000, the [“Israeli”] occupation was defeated in what its officers would later describe as “Israel’s” longest war. Members of the Saray built up their experiences and continued their maneuvers and training. They defended the resistance internally, supporting it in the July 2006 aggression and in its battles against the Takfirists.

The faithfulness and persistence they showed for the past 23 years was reciprocated with a full embrace from Hezbollah’s Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, especially when he met with one thousand of their men just over two years ago.

Today, the Saray is preparing to participate in defending Lebanon in any future war. This is a firm promise from its leader. According to him, the fighters of this military formation will hurt the enemies in the promised battle, and their capabilities enable them to achieve this.

Al-Ahed News interviewed the leader of the Lebanese Resistance Brigades on the fourteenth anniversary of the July 2006 aggression and the defeat of the enemy.

The Lebanese Resistance Brigades: We Are Ready to Defend Lebanon

Below is the full transcript of the interview:

What were the conditions for establishing the Lebanese Resistance Brigades?

In 1997, calls poured in to the leadership of the Islamic Resistance after the martyrdom of Sayyed Hadi Hassan Nasrallah in the Jabal al-Rafi operation in the Iqlim [al-Tuffah]. There was a great drive among the Lebanese youth to join the ranks of the resistance fighters.

So, 40 days after Sayyed Hadi’s martyrdom, Hezbollah SG Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah announced the establishment of a military formation called: the Lebanese Resistance Brigades. It would serve to combat the ‘Israeli’ occupation.

That’s when the percentage of those seeking to enlist under the banner of this formation grew. The leadership of the resistance met and approved this framework. Shortly thereafter, the training of groups of young Lebanese men commenced on Lebanese territory within special mechanisms and disciplines to prevent any infiltrations. This was essential because the success of the resistance’s operations relied on secrecy and the ability of its men to act covertly.

Four months after its establishment, the Brigades had participated in numerous military operations against the occupation. This would continue until the liberation of southern Lebanon. It attacked “Israeli” positions in full formations and under the supervision of the resistance.

At that point, we felt great compassion from the Lebanese people, which translated into many new recruits. The resistance apparatus absorbed and trained them in workshops that lasted months to produce combat cadres that could participate and attain victory. Indeed, the Resistance Brigades had the honor of fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Islamic Resistance to liberate the south.

What are the most prominent battles fought by the Brigades?

The Saraya launched many attacks on enemy positions in the south, such as Haddatha, al-Tiri, and Jezzine. Its operations varied from artillery fire to storming “Israeli” positions, in addition to joint operations with the Islamic Resistance, which included an exchange of roles. It has so far launched 200 operations of all kinds.

What about the members of the Resistance Brigades? Can we talk about their numbers?

Now, the Resistance Brigades include thousands of Lebanese youth eager to defend their homeland and liberate the remainder of its territory.

Can we say that the level of readiness of the Resistance Brigades in terms of weapons and equipment is adequate?

Members of the Saraya undergo numerous military exercises and courses and in large numbers. During the Takfiri attack on Lebanon, groups of the Saraya participated in operations that took place along the Eastern mountain range. These groups had special combat positions and artillery shelters at the border with Syria.

The Resistance Brigades is fully equipped, enabling its fighters to carry out any mission assigned to them within the defense mechanisms that the resistance command put in place in any future war.

The advantage of the Resistance Brigades is that it includes elements from different sects. Are these people obligated to adhere to religious disciplines such as those followed in the Islamic Resistance?

At the start, the idea of launching this formation was to absorb the Lebanese youth who wanted to participate with Hezbollah in resisting the occupation without adhering to the party’s intellectual and ideological principles. Rather, these Lebanese have a common national value which is loyalty to the cause of defending their country, lifting injustice, and fighting the occupation.

It does not matter what their own religious beliefs are. The overarching cause leads to a kind of solidarity and cohesion among the members of the Brigades. We have individuals who adhere to their faith and practice their rites with full freedom, and we work to provide the appropriate atmosphere for that. After all, the aim is to resist outside the realm of religious and sectarian backgrounds. They look up to Sayyed Nasrallah as a role model and always await his directions.

By the way, the Secretary General of Hezbollah met in person almost a thousand members of the Resistance Brigades, including group and faction leaders, more than two years ago. The meeting at that time was unique. Members of the Saraya sensed His Eminence’s fatherliness and his complete embrace of them.

On that day, Sayyed Nasrallah addressed them by saying:

“You, my children … each one of you is Hadi Hassan Nasrallah.”

The meeting was a mixture of tears, passion, emotions, and love.

These groups looked exactly like the Islamic Resistance groups – very similar to their morals. They became one of the key factors in Lebanon’s strength.

After the liberation in the year 2000, the 2006 July war, and the defeat of Takfiri terrorists in 2017, can we say that the mission of the Resistance Brigades is now confined to the internal arena as some say?

The Saraya is being attacked by a local, regional, and global campaign similar to the one Hezbollah is being subjected to. It is a psychological war. The youth from the Saraya come from reputable sectors of the Lebanese fabric, and therefore they are always being attacked due to internal problems. The aim is to tarnish their image and strike the spirit of the Lebanese resistance fighter.

The young men of the Saraya are deployed along the Lebanese borders with Palestine, and they have their camps and points. They also support the Lebanese society. They have recently taken part in distributing food and sterilization aid in various regions – from Akkar to Arqoub, from Naqura to Ras Baalbeck and al-Qaa amid the coronavirus pandemic without distinguishing between supporters and opponents.

Some are asking how can a Lebanese person join the Brigades?

There are mechanisms, of course. Any citizen can contact the official of their area. There are some measures that are taken at the level of discipline and organization. He then undergoes a trial period, after which he moves onto the preparation stage.

The important thing for those who wish to join the Brigades is that they believe in the goals of the resistance. They must be able to carry out the duties required of them within the framework of the resistance and be committed to its national project and liberation. They must also have a good reputation and not belong to any party.

Are members of the Resistance Brigades paid salaries?

We do not have full-time employees or employees that get paid in this formation. They are treated the same way the members of the general mobilization of Hezbollah are. We provide some social assistance or health facilities to some brothers who sometimes go through critical social conditions. We try to stand by them during difficult days as much as possible.

As for the six martyrs of the Saraya, their families are fully taken care of.

In your opinion, how do the Zionists view the formation of the Resistance Brigades?

The enemy watches us and takes into account the ability and movement of the resistance in other environments, which is a significant concern for it.

Sayyed Nasrallah: We Are Preparing for the Great War When ‘Israel’ Will Be Wiped off the Map

Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah Hezbollah Lebanon
Click the Pic to sea the Interview

Sara Taha Moughnieh

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Nasrallah saluted the Lebanese people on the anniversary of Resistance and Liberation in an interview to Al-Nour radio station.

His eminence assured that the spirit of the resistance fighters that led to these victories, which martyred resistance leader Hajj Imad Moughnieh spoke about saying “What fights in us is our spirit”, is still as strong and perseverant as before.

He assured that the resistance is developing on the military and armory levels but the essential tool in victory is the faithful, strong, authentic spirit of the resistance fighters and their families, despite all attempts to disfigure its identity.

Sayyed Nasrallah pointed out that the Israelis still remember the quote “weaker than the spider web” not because of the significance of its words but because of the significance of the timing and location it was stated in, which was the field of Bint Jbeil, adding that “in July war they tried to reach this spot to make a speech and say that Israel is stronger than steel, but they failed”.

His eminence noted that the strength point of Lebanon is the power of deterrence it had attained, and this is a strength because Lebanon was never the attacker, it was always being attacked.

Sayyed Nasrallah assured that the resistance saw the liberation of 2000 happening since 1983, and this was relevant in the speeches of Sayyed Abbas (Al-Moussawi) and Sheikh Ragheb Harb.

In this context, Hezbollah SG indicated that “when Ehud Barack was asked about the reason of invading Lebanon – I say this as 20 years have passed on victory because some people are still reading the developments wrong – he put two reasons. The first was to send the Palestinian resistance out of Lebanon to Jordan to topple the regime and establish an alternative state for the Palestinians there, and second was to bring the Jmayyel Family to presidency so that Lebanon becomes in the Israeli axis.”

Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah Hezbollah Lebanon
Sayyed Nasrallah in the interview with journalist Buthaina Olleik.

“Israel does not have real allies, it only sees its benefits. It is ready to collaborate against anyone for the sake of achieving its benefits. Israel has collaborated against Jordan since 1982 and the alternative state project there is ongoing since then,” he added, pointing out that “the fall of the political project in Lebanon let them focus their strength on the security line.”

Sayyed Nasrallah continued that “the security line alone was not enough for the Israelis to reach their goal which was to protect the settlements, and this is what the resistance was working on.”

“Two years before withdrawing completely, the Israelis handed the security lines and locations to Lahad Army. It planned to withdraw towards the borders as the confrontations continue between the resistance and Lahad Army, hence, the battle becomes a civil one that takes a sectarian form. However, the resistance continued its operations against Lahad Army until the latter finally surrendered leading to the complete Israeli withdrawal from the region and successfully avoiding any civil war back then,” he added.

When asked about the resistance’s vision for Israel in 2035, his eminence assured that Israel will not last as it is a strange body that does not resemble this region, and remembered a quote by Sayyed Moussa Al-Sadr in which he said that Israel was not a Jewish or a religious state but an apartheid state that sees itself superior on everyone as its people are the sons of Israel. It was established on terror and murder.

In this context, his eminence stressed that Israel acknowledges that it is not the same invincible power that was before 2000, not just in Lebanon but also in Gaza. He further stressed that Israel is completely reliant on the US while we see the latter’s position in the region deteriorating due to the policies it is following.

“The Image of the Israelis packing their stuff and getting on planes and ships is in front of my eyes,” Sayyed Nasrallah said.

Responding to a question on the resistance audience, his eminence assured that “there was never national unity around the resistance in order to say that it once had a wide audience that it had lost. Even in year 2000, the internal situation was not better than today. Some people used to consider that the resistance was not national and it was related to Syria and Iran.”

On the US presence in the region, Hezbollah SG noted that it was an evidence on the development of the resistance axis as it reveals the inability of Israel and its supporting regimes to protect their benefits.

“All the developments in the region are not for the benefit of Israel and there is a high level of balance between the two parts… The resistance’s strength today in occupied Palestine is a strategic power in the resistance axis.”

As his eminence reiterated that the resistance’s point of strength is its deterrence power, he indicated that “Israel is aware that any attack on Lebanon will not pass without a response, adding that the latest Israeli attack on a car that had members of Hezbollah in it in the Syrian territories without causing casualties was not an Israeli error.

“Israel intended not to hurt the men in the car because it was aware that the equation today is that there will be a response on any assassination.”

In this context, his eminence warned that “the level of patience and tolerance of the Syrian leadership has a limit, and the enemy could make a stupid act that might cause the Syrian leadership to lose its patience and might lead to a war.”

In parallel, he assured that the Israelis intervened in Syria after they realized that the opposition groups they supported there were defeated.

Concerning the UNIFIL forces in Lebanon, Sayyed Nasrallah stated that “there is an Israeli demand backed by the US to the Global Community to increase the number of UNIFIL forces. For us, increasing or decreasing the number of forces does not matter… If there was a change in the tasks of the UNIFIL forces we might demand that the forces be relocated on the other side of the borders… The time in which Lebanon was perceived as the weak part is gone and Israel can no longer impose its conditions on it.”

Internally, Sayyed Nasrallah said that in a great speech
Sayyed Moussa Al-Sadr delivered once he said that the politicians in Lebanon were ready to drag the country toward a civil war in order to  preserve their position. He said Lebanese politicians are heartless and are ready to kill up to 10,000 people for this goal.

In this context, his eminence asserted that Hezbollah is very sensitive about a civil war due to its faith and commitment, not because it has a “phobia” from it as claimed. We don’t want a civil war and we refuse to take the government even if offered. We don’t want to control the country and as Imam Al-Sadr said “a revolution in Lebanon, if it wasn’t over-passing religions it will not get anywhere.”.

Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that any disagreement in Lebanon is diverted into a sectarian disagreement which reassures the importance of setting limits on any internal transformation so that the enemy does not take advantage of the situation.

He emphasized that the Lebanese Judiciary must be the reference in fighting corruption calling on everyone who has any corruption file against any Hezbollah political official to refer to the judiciary authority.

“I have said before that the battle against corruption is harder than the battle against Israel and it needs time. First we must remove the mines not step on them in order to open the roads.”

Sayyed Nasrallah indicated that when Ehud Barack was asked about methods to destroy Hezbollah, he considered that dragging Hezbollah into a civil war and making people and its supporting environment revolt against it would destroy it.

“Thus, this is a sensitive issue as the resistance is on the top of the enemy’s list of targets, and any new given must be studied very well.”

On the economic level, Sayyed Nasrallah considered that “we can get out of this economic crisis but it needs a political decision,” adding that “if Hezbollah revealed its economic plan it will be fought immediately on both internal and external levels”.

As he emphasized the importance of cooperating with the Syrians on the industrial and agricultural levels, he noted that some parts refuse this fearing that this would damage the relations with the US.

“America wants to humiliate Lebanon and impose its conditions on it.”

In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the Lebanese people saying: “The solution for the economic crisis is to abandon US satisfaction and head east”.

“Some parts are obstructing deals with China due to their fears from the US… China can solve the electricity problem with less cost than Germany, but this needs a political decision. If the current government was a Hezbollah government it would’ve referred to Chine. This is the biggest evidence that this is an independent government that is considering the views of all the parties.”

Concerning the Banking crisis, his eminence said “we demanded protecting all the savings. It is our duty to shout out but it is the government and official sides’ duty to take action. Hezbollah has no interest in changing the banking system or any other system in Lebanon.”

On Hezbollah’s relation with its allies, Sayyed Nasrallah stated that “we are solving problems between our allies and solving our problems with our allies by shutting them down… Our allies and us are not one body, we are two bodies so it is normal to have different views but we don’t allow this to break any alignment.”

His eminence considered that social media is playing a negative role by creating problems that do not exist, and assured that “we have to co-live with social media and must turn its threat into an opportunity through guidance and addressing.”

On the regional level, Sayyed Nasrallah assured that the US withdrawal from the region will be on all political, cultural, and military levels.

He considered that the US is on its way to pack and leave the region due to several reasons including the public desire in Iraq, their withdrawal from Afghanistan, their identification as “occupation forces” in Syria, the failed war on Yemen, the unsuccessful “deal of the century” which was signed by only one part of the agreement, and the developments in general.

Sayyed Nasrallah ruled out any war between the US and Iran or between Israel and Lebanon “unless the latter decided to make a stupid act”, he said. He finally noted that Israel might cease to exist if the circumstances that it emerged on changed.

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related Videos

Related Articles

From The Memory of The People: Flowers, Dancing and a Defeated “Israeli” Occupation Army

From The Memory of The People: Flowers, Dancing and a Defeated “Israeli” Occupation Army

By Nour Rida

Lebanon – Many are the photos and videos that rerun the joy and emotions of people returning to their homes and villages in Lebanon, after long years of “Israeli” occupation to their land.

25 May, celebrated as a national holiday and considered as one of the most important days in Lebanon’s modern history is dubbed Resistance and Liberation Day. After two decades, people recall the day when they tasted the sweetness of returning back to their homes, lands and villages and reunited with their loved ones, and the day when the detainees saw the sun again after long years of torture and imprisonment in “Israeli” prisons set up inside the Lebanese territory; like the infamous Khiam prison.

Fatima, 65 years old, told al-Ahed news that she was on a vacation in Lebanon. She had been living abroad all her life, driven out of Lebanon due to the civil war and then the “Israeli” occupation of Lebanon.

“I remember that day so well. As soon as we heard the news, that the ‘Israeli’ army was withdrawing, we poured down to the streets in Beirut to celebrate, and to find out more about what was happening. I had not been to the South of Lebanon for many years because of the occupation. So we instantly rode our car and moved towards the South with the other thousands of cars to go back home. People were throwing rice and flowers, giving out sweets and candy, it was sort of a wedding or parade and you just could see the smiles and tears of joy everywhere.”

Mariam, 73 year old housewife who comes originally from Jizzine, a village in South Lebanon with a Christian majority, told al-Ahed news that on that day, rumors were spreading like fire at the beginning that the Hezbollah, or Lebanese resistance movement was killing people all across the South of Lebanon and that no one should even think of going to the South at the moment.

“My husband said this was definitely rubbish, he had been friends with many of the resistance fighters and he said he knew well that was not the case. We are Christians, but we lived a long life of friendship and love with our Muslim neighbors, who cared for us more than our own family members sometimes. Soon we joined the cars moving towards the South on that day, only to find out what my husband was saying: these are rumors of hatred and bigotry by ‘Israel’ and their allies inside Lebanon.”

On that day, many marched back to their homes and villages on foot. It was like waves of human beings were flocking back to their land of which they were deprived by the “Israeli” occupation.

“My aunt shows in one of the videos on that day,” Amal said.

Amal was a kid at the time, but she knows the stories by heart. She has been listening to these stories for 20 years now, and today she turns 30. She was born on this same day only 10 years before the “Israeli” so-called invincible army withdrew from Lebanon.

“Many took to the streets, dancing, chanting, embracing each other and tossing rice and flowers in the air in celebration. I was a kid but I still vaguely remember how we were standing at the doorsteps of our house and people were celebrating; my aunt shows in one of the videos dancing and throwing flowers right in front of our house.”

Sara, for her part, was the daughter of an agent who worked for the “Israeli” occupation in its Lahed Army, or what was known as the SLA [South Lebanon Army]. It was an army in which Lebanese people were hired to help the “Israeli” occupation, and hence it was an army of national traitors. Sara wanted to speak anonymously; it still bothers her that her father was a traitor and an agent who worked for the “Israeli” occupation.

“I cannot hide from the past, and I cannot forget that he is my father. We were so scared when the ‘Israelis’ fled and people said we will be killed and humiliated by Hezbollah, but until this day none of the Hezbollah people did us wrong. The only one humiliated was my father, when he fled to the Galilee camp and later told us how badly they were treated until he managed to leave to Canada after a few weeks of ill treatment and lack of any basic needs or respect,” Sara described.

She went on to say “He later came to Lebanon and was jailed for three years because of cooperating with the ‘Israeli’ occupation army.”

The 2000 liberation of Lebanon was a turning point in the history of Lebanon and the region, from which people and societies can draw lessons and inspiration. Western media attempts across the years are crystal clear, trying to misrepresent history or hide the told and untold stories. But facts cannot be concealed. The stories of the people, the marching of the people on foot all the way to the South, the videos and the photos and audio-visual history, the tears of joy and longing, the blood of the martyrs and the some 150 Khiam Lebanese detainees whose scars still speak of “Israeli” torture cannot be buried.

It was the resistance fighters and the people who hand in hand liberated their land. As Timor Goksel, former spokesman and senior advisor to UNIFIL had said once on the popular move: “Back in 2000, it was the march of the people before the Liberation which amazed me the most…The starting point was in the village of Kantara towards the village of Taybe. Hundreds of children, women, and men marched towards freedom.”

In 1979, Goksel was assigned as Press Information Officer/Spokesman to UNIFIL at South Lebanon’s Nakoura and later became a Senior Adviser of UNIFIL in 1995.

Goksel said that historically, “Israel” never left a country without something in return, but this only time was a withdrawal for nothing in return; that’s why this time it was a success.

Hence, what speaks stronger than all these memories is the fact that the once unbeatable “Israeli” army faces a deterrence power in the region imposed by the Lebanese resistance. And so, 2000 was not only a memory in the minds and hearts of the people with stories told and some others untold. May 25 2000 is a day when the political, military and strategic equations in the Lebanon, the region and the entire world changed.

The Humiliation of ’Israel’ in the Eyes of Imad Mughniyeh

The Humiliation of ’Israel’ in the Eyes of Imad Mughniyeh

By Latifa Al-Husseiny

Beirut – You never run out of stories about the time of liberation. It is like a spring of fresh water on a high mountain pouring on the ground. Twenty full years of Imad Mughniyeh and his comrades in jihad. There was planning, implementation, and then achieving an Arab victory that was only difficult in the dictionary of the weak.

It is May 18, 2000. The beginning of the “Israeli” withdrawal from southern Lebanon begins to unfold. The resistance and its mujahideen are prepared and aware of what is going on. Its military leadership and its cadres are meeting in a village.

The goal is to continuously assess the situation to develop hypothetical scenarios in the event of any major retreat by the enemy. Hajj Imad is heading the meeting. He, along with his cohorts of resistance officers, are providing estimates while examining hypotheticals and sny potential plans the Zionists might adopt. Before those in attendance, he repeats one chorus: the “Israeli” enemy must leave humiliated and under fire.

For this purpose, numerous meetings with the command of military operations and mobilization forces were held. Various sources of fire including the artillery and launchers were stationed in the south. Reconnaissance of the enemy’s movements and soldiers was carried out a week before the liberation of the south, especially in light of the evacuations that were taking place along some of the posts. All this was overseen by Hajj Imad personally.

The enemy’s retreat rolled on. Qantara, Al-Qoussair, Deir Siriane, and Tayibe were liberated from the occupation under the strikes of the Mujahideen, while the locals headed to the occupied gate and removed it.

The resistance leadership drew up alternative plans on how to pounce the Lahad army at the time. It also deployed military police to the southern border villages to prevent any disturbances during the “Israeli” escape.

Indeed, some Lahad forces surrendered in Adaisseh, while others fled under fire from the resistance. Bint Jbeil and the towns in that district were liberated. The liberation rumbled from Tayibe to Hula to Beit Yahoun until the miniature security belt drawn up by the then “Israeli” War Minister Ehud Barak to protect the northern settlements collapsed.

A leader in the Islamic Resistance tells al-Ahed about those days.

“We stayed in the south, watching closely how the “Israelis” fled. Hajj Imad managed the military missions and distributed tasks. When the operations began, he was at the helm of those checking the situation. He went to the Palestinian border without escort.”

On May 23 and May 24, “Israeli” soldiers continued their withdrawal. From Ainatha to Kfar Tibnit to the Khiam detention center, the Zionists withdrew defeated. Hajj Imad was waiting, while the resistance men spread around and targeted them.

On the final day of throwing out the occupiers, the battle ended at the Fatima Gate at the border. Through it, the last “Israeli” soldier fled. That moment was historic.

While Benny Gantz, the commander of the so-called Lebanon Liaison Unit in the “Israeli” army, closed the gate and put the key under one of the rocks, Hajj Imad was a few meters away looking at how the “Israelis” were humiliated.

He stood in front of the Fatima Gate, while the resistance apparatus deployed and secured all the villages. Inhaling the breath of freedom and the fragrance of Palestine, he did not care about the people who had been trailing him for years. Those people were fleeing broken, looking for a refuge to hide their failures and surrender. On the other hand, Hajj Imad was defying everything to take a look at the Galilee and beyond. He had accomplished the first step of the inevitable liberation.

Six years after the 2000 liberation of the south, the July War came. Hajj Imad led 33 days of confrontations with the enemy. He thwarted the Zionists’ promise. It was another divine victory on the road to Palestine. Angered by the defeat, “Israel” decided to take revenge. For this purpose, it utilized its tools and agents. The meeting was in Syria.

Away from the commotion of the world, a group of leaders of the resistance axis gathered in one of the party’s centers in the Kafr Souseh area in Damascus.

On the evening of February 12, 2008, a group of leaders of the Revolutionary Guards headed by the commander of the Quds Force, Hajj Qassem Soleimani, met leaders of the Islamic Resistance, headed by Hajj Imad Mughniyeh.

It was a military summit that lasted for about an hour. One of the leaders who attended the meeting explained that the main reason for the meeting was to conduct an evaluation of the general situation at the level of the resistance factions. However, the special relationship between Hajj Imad and Hajj Qassem set the tone of the meeting.

There was laughter and smiles as if they felt that this would be a farewell. Hajj Qassem told our interlocutor, “What Hajj Imad says, I implement. I am a soldier of Hajj Imad Mughniyeh.” When the latter heard that sentence, he quickly said, “No, we are brothers.”

The evaluation session was over, and it was time to depart. Hajj Qassem Soleimani stood at the elevator and embraced Hajj Imad with great affection. That moment was engraved in the memory of the people present. It was proof that the relationship between the two men surpassed the cause. It was a relationship of spirit and sacrifice similar to the relationship between al-Hussayn and al-Abbas (PBUT). They shared redemption, responsibility, and a high jihadist spirit.

Five minutes later, Hajj Imad left to carry out an important mission. When he got to his car, he was martyred.

Hajj Qassem never knew Hajj Imad’s destination. He heard a loud explosion and was informed of the news. He went back to find his companion dead.

What was the nature of the meeting they agreed on minutes earlier? It was a painful separation. However, 12 years later that conclusion was repeated with Hajj Qassem’s spirit rising to the supreme kingdom. Both men’s blood was spilt on the road to Palestine for the sake of Al-Quds.

مشاورات التمديد لـ«يونيفيل»: مندوبة لبنان «تخالف» أم «تتآمر»؟

مشاورات التمديد لـ«يونيفيل»: مندوبة لبنان «تخالف» أم «تتآمر»؟
(أ ف ب )

وفيق قانصوه

الأربعاء 6 أيار 2020

«نعم. أمل مدللي تتبنّى تماماً الموقف الأميركي في شأن العمل على تغيير تفويض «اليونيفيل» وقواعد عملها في لبنان». هذا ما أكّدته مصادر دبلوماسية لبنانية رفيعة المستوى في بيروت لـ«الأخبار» حول ما أثير عن الموقف الملتبس لمندوبة لبنان لدى الأمم المتحدة في المداولات الجارية في المنظمة الدولية عشية التجديد للقوات الدولية العاملة في لبنان نهاية الشهر الجاري. المصادر أوضحت أن التعديلات التي يعمل عليها الأميركيون «تطال خفض موازنة اليونيفيل وتقليص عديدها وإعادة النظر بالتفويض الممنوح لها عبر توسيع مهماتها بما يسمح لها بالدخول الى الملكيات الخاصة… أي باختصار كشف ظهر المقاومة».

وبحسب مصادر دبلوماسية في نيويورك، فإن مدللي «شاركت في مشاورات أميركية – سعودية – ألمانية من أجل اقتراح قرار بإدراج حزب الله على قائمة الأمم المتحدة للارهاب»، مشيرة الى أن اقتراحاً كهذا «من الصعب جداً أن يمرّ في وجود الفيتو الروسي والصيني، وهو ما يدركه من يعدّون له. لذلك، فإن التوجّه الآن ينصبّ على محاولة إدخال تعديل على ولاية اليونيفيل وقواعد عملها، في ظل شبه الغيبوبة التي تعاني منها الحكومة اللبنانية تحت ضغط الازمة الاقتصادية وجائحة كورونا، ما يعطي المندوبة هامشاً كبيراً من الحركة في تعديل فقرات من قرار التجديد لليونيفيل».

وبعد جلسة مغلقة عقدها مجلس الأمن بواسطة الفيديو، أول من أمس، لمناقشة أحدث تقرير للأمين العام للأمم المتحدة أنطونيو غوتيريش حول تنفيذ القرار 1701، واستمع خلالها إلى إحاطة من المنسق الخاص للأمم المتحدة في لبنان يان كوبيتش، حضّت واشنطن أعضاء المجلس على إعادة النظر في التفويض الممنوح لـ «اليونيفيل» بغية السماح لها بتنفيذ المهمات الموكلة إليها. وكتبت المندوبة الأميركية لدى الأمم المتحدة كيلي كرافت، على «تويتر»، أن «على مجلس الأمن أن يعمل لضمان أن تكون («اليونيفيل») قادرة على العمل كقوة فاعلة ومؤثرة»، إذ «لا يزال ممنوعاً على هذه القوة أن تنفذ تفويضها»، كما أن «حزب الله تمكن من تسليح نفسه وتوسيع عملياته ما يعرض الشعب اللبناني للخطر». ورأت أن «على مجلس الأمن إما أن يسعى إلى تغيير جاد لتمكين اليونيفيل، أو أن يعيد تنظيم العاملين لديها ومواردها بمهمات يمكنها تحقيقها».

وأشار غوتيريش في تقريره الى أن «امتلاك أسلحة خارج نطاق سيطرة الدولة يشكّل انتهاكاً مستمراً للقرار 1701». ودعا الحكومة اللبنانية إلى «اتخاذ كل الإجراءات الضرورية لضمان التنفيذ الكامل للأحكام ذات الصلة من اتفاق الطائف والقرارين 1559 و1680 التي تطالب بنزع سلاح كل الجماعات المسلحة في لبنان». كما طالبها بـ«التزام سياسة النأي بالنفس، بما يتفق مع إعلان بعبدا»، ودعا «جميع الأطراف اللبنانية إلى الكفّ عن المشاركة في النزاع السوري وغيره من النزاعات في المنطقة». وشدّد على أن «حرية تنقل اليونيفيل في جميع أنحاء منطقة عملياتها في غاية الأهمية». فيما لفت كوبيتش، أكثر من مرة، وبوضوح، الى «التذمر الاسرائيلي من موضوع الأنفاق والأحداث التي تجري على الخط الأزرق».

ومعلوم أن تعديل ولاية اليونيفيل يحتاج إلى قرار جديد يتبناه مجلس الأمن الدولي. وتطالب الولايات المتحدة، منذ عهد باراك أوباما، استجابة لمطالب اسرائيل، بتطوير عمل هذه القوات وتوسيع صلاحياتها لتشمل تفتيش المنازل في الجنوب والدخول إلى أي مكان بشكل مفاجئ. إلا أنها اصطدمت دائماً برفض الدول الأخرى الأعضاء لا سيما روسيا والصين، وفي كثير من الحالات بمعارضة فرنسا صاحبة المشاركة الأكبر في القوة الدولية، وكذلك دول تشارك في اليونيفيل، لخشيتها من أن يغضب أي تعديل حزب الله مع ما لذلك من إنعكاسات محتملة على العلاقة بين القوة الدولية والأهالي على الأرض.

مصادر دبلوماسية لبنانية: مدللي تتبنّى الموقف الأميركي في تغيير تفويض «اليونيفيل»

الأخبار: مدللي تتبنّى الموقف الأميركي في تغيير تفويض اليونيفيل

المصادر الدبلوماسية اللبنانية أكّدت أن مندوبة لبنان لم تنسّق خطواتها الأخيرة مع وزير الخارجية اللبناني أو مع أي موظف في الخارجية، مشيرة الى ضرورة «القيام بأمر ما»، موضحة أن على الحكومة استدعاء مدللي فوراً ومساءلتها بشأن مواقفها الأخيرة، مستغربة عدم إصدار الخارجية أي توضيح لما تقوم به السفيرة في نيويورك. ولفتت المصادر الى أن مندوبة لبنان «على ما يبدو تتصرف وفق أجندة خاصة، إذ أن أي طرف سياسي في لبنان، بما فيها الطرف الذي تحسب مدللي عليه، لم يعبّر يوماً عن موافقته على تعديل تفويض عمل اليونيفيل». واستغربت عدم إبلاغ مدللي وزارة الخارجية بطلب فرنسا، اثناء المداولات الأخيرة، من مجلس الامن الاستعداد لمساعدة لبنان على الخروج من الأزمة الاقتصادية، «وهي عندما سُئلت عن الأمر أجابت بأنها اعتبرت الأمر غير مهم»!

في المقابل، ينقل دبلوماسيون عن مدللي نفيها أن تكون قد اتخذت أي مبادرة أو أعلنت أي موقف خارج الموقف الرسمي اللبناني، فيما قال دبلوماسيون آخرون لـ«الأخبار» إن مخالفة مدللي تكمن في كونها دخلت في المشاورات، من دون إبلاغ الخارجية بذلك، إلا انها لم تتبنّ أي موقف بشأن ما يُقترح. ويستدل هؤلاء على كلامهم بالقول إن اقتراح تعديل مهمة اليونيفيل لا يزال يحتاج إلى وقت قبل وضعه على طاولة المفاوضات الجدية.

سعد الحريري يخفق في تحويل لقاء بعبدا الى كباش صلاحيات لبنانية ...

مدللي عُينت في منصبها قبل عامين خلفاً للسفير نواف سلام، وهي عملت سابقاً «مستشارة إعلامية» للرئيس سعد الحريري، وممثلة له في واشنطن، فضلاً عن كونها قدّمت خدمات للديوان الملكي السعودي في العاصمة الأميركية، لجهة تسويق سياسة الرياض وتأمين تواصل مع شخصيات أميركية. ويؤخذ عليها قلة التنسيق مع الخارجية باستثناء «أجنحة قريبة منها سياسياً».

ويُنقل عن موظفي بعثة لبنان في مجلس الأمن أنها «كفّت أيدي جميع أعضاء البعثة عن متابعة أي ملف وحصرت كل الأمور السياسية والمالية وغيرها بها وحدها». كما يؤخذ عليها قلة انتاجيتها، «ففي عهد السفير سلام كانت البعثة تراسل الخارجية مرة شهرياً على الأقل، ليتراجع عدد المراسلات في عهد مدللي الى نحو ست سنوياً، علماً أن لبنان موجود على جدول أعمال مجلس الأمن في أكثر من قرار، وهو يندرج ضمن المجموعة العربية وكتلة عدم الإنحياز، وتصدر قرارات سنوية في الجمعية العامة تعني لبنان واللبنانيين مباشرة وغير مباشرة».

مقالات متعلقة

هل تنجح أميركا بتعديل تفويض اليونيفيل في الجنوب؟

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

بعد أن فشلت “إسرائيل” في تحقيق أهداف عدوانها على لبنان في العام 2006 بسبب بسالة المقاومة في الدفاع، قدّمت لها أميركا جائزة ترضية تمثلت بالقرار 1701 الذي غيّر بعض الشيء من تفويض قوات اليونيفيل المنتدبة إلى لبنان منذ العدوان الإسرائيلي الأول في العام 1978، كما عدّل تشكيلها ورفعها إلى 15000 عسكري منهم قوة بحرية ألحقت بـ “اليونيفيل” لأول مرة، وقد حاولت أميركا تشديد أحكام القرار يومها وإصداره تحت الفصل السابع وجعل القوات المنتدَبة قوات متعددة الجنسية، لكنها فشلت في مساعيها أمام الواقع الذي ارتسم في الميدان والإقليم يومها والذي لم يكن لصالح أميركا و”إسرائيل” المهزومة. ونذكّر هنا بالفقرة 10 من مشروع القرار الأميركي التي كانت تتحدث عن ذلك، لكن الرفض اللبناني المقاوم أسقطها.

وفي الأشهر الأولى لوصول التعزيزات العسكرية الدولية والتي شكلت قوات الأطلسي النسبة الأكبر فيها براً وبحراً حيث بلغت 75% من مجمل القوات (11000 من أصل 15000 براً وبحراً) حاولت تلك القوات الأطلسية خاصة الفرنسية والإسبانية أن تفرض قواعد اشتباك عملية ميدانية تتخطى منطوق القرار 1701 الذي صدر تحت الفصل السادس والذي يقيّد الأمم المتحدة في المهمة بحصرها في مساندة الجيش اللبناني في مهامه، ويقيّدها في بقعة العمليات ويحصرها في منطقة جنوبي الليطاني بين الحدود الدولية وخط جنوبي النهر ويقيّدها بإطلاق النار ويمنعها من ذلك إلا في حال الدفاع عن النفس أو لزوم مهمة مساندة الجيش. أما الممارسة العملية التي حاول الأطلسيون فرضها يومها فكانت تتخطى كلّ ذلك بعيداً عن القرار. وكانت المفاجأة أنّ الحكومة اللبنانية ورغم تحذير الجيش ورفض المقاومة واستنكار الشخصيات والقوى الوطنية، التزمت الصمت يومها أمام سياسة الفرض بالأمر الواقع، ما استدعى تصدّي الأهالي المدنيّين للأمر حتى كادت تقع مواجهات يسقط فيها ضحايا.

أمام هذا الواقع أدركت القوى الأطلسيّة التي استأثرت منذ العام 2006 بقيادة قوات اليونيفيل أنّ سياسة الأمر الواقع وفرض قواعد اشتباك تتخطى ما قبل به لبنان بمقاومته خاصة في القرار 1701 انّ هذا لن ينجح لا بل انّ الإصرار عليه سيعرّض سلامة القوى للخطر وسيحوّلها بنظر الأهالي إلى قوات احتلال يكون مصيرها كمصير قوات الاحتلال الإسرائيلي، عندها تراجع الأطلسيون ومعهم كلّ اليونيفيل عن المحاولة واعتمدت قواعد اشتباك تلتزم نص القرار 1701 بالشكل الذي ذكرنا.

بيد أنّ أميركا لم تسقط التعديل من رأسها وكانت مع كلّ تجديد او تمديد لمهمة اليونيفيل في لبنان، تحاول فرضه مرة جديدة وكانت تواجَه بالرفض اللبناني الذي كان يضغط على القوى المشاركة في القوات الدولية بما يشكله من خطر عليها فتهدّد بالانسحاب في حال تمّ التعديل الذي كانت تريده أميركا بتحويل قوات اليونيفيل من قوات سلام تعمل برضى الأطراف في بيئة ديمغرافية تتقبّلها، إلى قوات قتال في بيئة تعاديها أو ترفضها. وفي المحصّلة فشلت أميركا طيلة العقد المنصرم من أجراء أيّ تعديل للقرار 1701.

واليوم تتكرّر المحاولة قبل أشهر ثلاثة من انتهاء تفويض اليونيفيل وتريد أميركا إجراء تعديل يخوّل اليونيفيل بمهام بعيداً عن مساندة الجيش ويجيز لها فتح النار خارج حالات الدفاع عن النفس. والبعض يقول أيضاً السماح لها بالعمل في النطاق الأمني شمالي خط الليطاني في العمق اللبناني والقصد من كلّ ذلك تكليف اليونيفيل القيام بمهمة تخدم حصرياً المصالح “الإسرائيلية” بجمع المعلومات والتفتيش عن سلاح المقاومة ونزعه وهي المهمة التي عجزت “إسرائيل” عنها في حرب الـ 33 يوماً وتراها اليوم أكثر ألحاحاً مع ما يُتدَاول عن امتلاك المقاومة لترسانة صواريخ تخطت الـ 100 ألف صاروخ حسب قول “إسرائيل”، ومنها كمّ مهمّ من الصواريخ الدقيقة التي تقضّ مضاجع “إسرائيل”.

إنّ المحاولة الأميركية خطرة وخبيثة وإذا قيّض لها النجاح فإنها ستضع المقاومة والشعب في الجنوب وجهاً لوجه وينقلب الأمن والاستقرار السائدين حالياً في المنطقة إلى حالة من الاضطراب والاختلال الأمني التي لا يمكن لأحد أن يتوقع إلى أين تصل في حال تدحرجها. ولذلك نرى انّ على لبنان أن يضع مجلس الأمن منذ الآن بين خيارين أما التمديد لـ “اليونيفيل” دون أيّ تعديل للقرار 1701 او سحب هذه القوات التي تقدّم حتى في واقعها الحالي خدمات لـ “إسرائيل” أكثر منها للبنان.

وبالمناسبة نقول إنّ اليونيفيل لم تنفذ مهامها التي أسندت اليها بالقرار 1701 في واقعه الحالي خاصة لجهة مزارع شبعا والغجر ومناطق الاحتلال الإسرائيلي الـ 13 شمالي الحدود الدولية والخط الأزرق المعتمد للتحقق من الانسحاب الإسرائيلي، والذي تريده أميركا و”إسرائيل” خطاً للتفاوض على حدود جديدة وفقاً لصفقة القرن، ولم تلتفت أميركا او أحد من المعنيين إلى هذا التقصير، بينما تصرّ أميركا على أمر آخر يتعلق بتعديل التفويض لمحاصرة المقاومة والتفتيش عن سلاحها ودفع الجنوبيين إلى حالة من القلق لا يعرفون معها متى تدخل عليهم في بيوتهم وممتلكاتهم قوات أجنبية ترتدي القبعات الزرقاء لتفتش أماكن تظنّ أنها فيها ممنوعات متجاوزة الجيش اللبناني وقوى الأمن اللبناني ذات الصلاحية وممارسة لوظيفة قوات احتلال وليس قوات سلام او حفظ سلام.

لبنان: انتهاكات إسرائيل الجوية "خطيرة" - وكالة سند للأنباء

إننا ورغم شكّنا بقدرة أميركا على إجراء التعديل، وذلك لأكثر من اعتبار أهمّها ما يتعلق بخوف الدول المشاركة في اليونيفيل على أمن قواتها إذا جرى التعديل دون موافقة بيئة المقاومة وشعبها في الجنوب، وكذلك حاجة ذلك لموافقة الحكومة اللبنانية التي بتركيبتها الحالية لا يمكن لها أن توافق على التعديل ولا يغيّر من الأمر شيء القول بانّ مندوبة لبنان في الأمم المتحدة قد توافق، فهذا الأمر هو أمر تأسيسي استراتيجي لا يمكن للمندوبة أن تتخذ فيه قراراً دون العودة الى وزارة الخارجية، رغم كلّ ما يُقال بهذا الصدد، أضف إلى ذلك توقع الرفض الروسي والصيني والفرنسي تبعاً للرفض اللبناني.

بيد أنه ورغم كلّ ما ذكر نرى أنّ على الحكومة اللبنانية ومنذ الآن إبلاغ مجلس الأمن بكتاب خطي واضح رفضها أيّ تعديل للقرار 1701 ورفضها أيّ مراجعة لقواعد الاشتباك مهما كان الأمر طفيفاً. وقبل أن ينظر بتعديلات تقيّد لبنان وتطلق يد الأمم المتحدة فيه لمصلحة “إسرائيل”، وأنّ على الأمم المتحدة تطبيق القرار بأحكامه الحالية وتأمين المصالح اللبنانية التي قيل إنها اعتُمدت لترعاها.

*أستاذ جامعي – وخبير استراتيجي

فيديو متعلق

مقالات متعلقة

%d bloggers like this: