Hezbollah returns to Lebanon under UNIFIL’s noses

The United Nations sent UNIFIL troops to Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah from re-taking South Lebanon and making it into an armed camp from which terrorists could fight Israel.

As is usual for all things UN, UNIFIL failed in its mission. Hezbollah is now, gee, re-taking South Lebanon and making it into an armed camp from which terrorists will fight Israel.

[…] Hezbollah is also getting ready. No longer only to the north of the Litani River in the eastern part of the Bekaa Valley, where a rearmament has been observed since the beginning of the year, but – and this is new – in South Lebanon, in the UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force, reinforced after the summer 2006 war between the IDF and Hezbollah) zone.

Lately, truck convoys have been sighted at night, as well as trenches dug amid the palm groves and immediately recovered; suspicious explosions have been heard: so many indications that strangely recall the 2005-2006 preparations, when, in anticipation of a conflict with Israel, Hezbollah dug tunnels, fortified bunkers and secured its radio communications. “The Lebanese Army has been informed, but for the moment, it does nothing,” deplores the French military expert.

And it’s getting worse.

This summer, Hassan Nasrallah talked about future “big surprises.” The Hezbollah leader insinuated that his party, allied to Tehran and Damascus, holds longer-range missiles than the Iranian models the IDF destroyed during the 2006 war: Zelzals capable of striking Tel-Aviv, or even further south in Israel.

The only good news in all of this is that Israel now has a Defense Minister who knows what he is doing, and how to direct the IDF to combat Hezbollah and Hamas. The bad news, of course, is that Israel is likely to be fighting a multi-front war. Hamas has smuggled 200 tons of explosives into the Gaza Strip. Egypt is allowing known terrorists to enter Gaza freely. And of course, Iran is funding all of Israel’s enemies: Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, and probably Fatah as well. Not that it matters. European nations are going to hold a fundraiser for Fatah—sorry, the PA—in a few months. The money for weapons, incitement, and Jew-hatred will never dry up.

It seems to me that if George W. Bush can’t get the UN to agree to harsher sanctions on Iran, and the U.S. does attack the Iranian nuclear facilities, rockets will be raining down on Israel from Gaza, from Syria, from Lebanon, and from Iran itself. The casualty rate will be much higher than that of the Lebanon war. Israel can’t launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s rocket installations, and there is no missile defense shield extant that can stop 100% of incoming missiles. The 90% rate that Ehud Barak is looking for will still allow hundreds of missiles to find their mark. An all-out war would be horrible. This has to be stopped before it can happen.

I have no idea how.

This entry was posted in Israel, World. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Hezbollah returns to Lebanon under UNIFIL’s noses

  1. Lefty says:

    I’m more optimistic than Meryl, because I think the logic of deterrence will kick in. Iran is arming Hizbullah partly to deter an American attack on Iran. And it’ll probably work — an American attack on Iran was never likely, and the threat of rockets being shot at Israel again from Lebanon makes it even less likely. Iran will thus keep Hizbullah armed, but on a leash.

  2. Ed Hausman says:

    Think happy thoughts. The last time Iran had Hizballah on a leash, Nasrallah fired missiles across the border, killed Israeli troops, and captured two of them. What surprises should we pretend aren’t waiting for us this time?

    I believe I just read a notice that the US is going to forge a strategic partnership with the Lebanese Army. Wonderful.

  3. The bonding of Lebanese army and American will increase the regional tension, as the Saniora government represnts the Shinne muslin but not Shiya muslin. It will inrease the speed of split of Lebanese community.

    I try to find out a solution for this problem, but it is too difficult. When the forign army entered China in 19 centrury, what the buddad did is to burned themselves to restrict this kind of voilence. What Gandi did was sitting and staying hungray. Nieight I agree with this kind of solution.

    But i do feel, somebody should withdrew from the game of making problems on purpose in order to increase weapon selling. only think about which are the biggest countries in weapon selling business?!

  4. Michael Lonie says:

    The biggest countries in the weapon selling business are probably Russia, China, and France.

    No “good example” will do any good here. Ghandi’s methods worked because he was opposed by the British and not the Nazis or Commies. The Chinese actually fought the Europeans and the Japanese, they just did not fight them effectively.

    There are a lot of people in positions of power in the world, in Iran, the Arab countries, China, Russia, and even some at the Quai d’Orsay, who think the 20th Century was so much fun, with its genocide, world wars, mass murders in the name of insane ideologies, mass famines in the name of those same insane ideologies, and continental wide impoverishment as a result of those insane ideologies, that we should do it all over again in the 21st Century. Unless they are stopped early by force,covert action, or democratic revolutions they will bring about another Bloody Century.

    For example, there is no diplomatic carrot or stick that will convince Iran to drop its nuclear arms programs. The utility of such arms for Iran’s goals is too great to make any alternative attractive. Furthermore, Iran’s Pharaohs do not think they need to pay attention. Any diplomatic punishment, they believe, will soon be followed by the abject humiliation of the countries trying to restrain Iran, and they will come crawling back to Iran begging for forgiveness, eager for new contracts and profitable business. That’s the way it has been at every diplomatic attempt to restrain Iran since 1979, why should the next one be different?

    War is coming. If we wait for the enemy to strike at his own convenience it will be a bigger and bloodier war than if we preemptively destroy Iran’s war-making capacity first. Which do you prefer: bigger and bloodier and later, or smaller and less bloody and sooner? There will be no third choice, unless the Pharaohs of Tehran are overthrown before they get nukes. That does not seem likely now.

Comments are closed.