RSS
Despite the ‘Lebanonization’ of Hezbollah, It Still Wants to Destroy Israel
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah addresses his supporters through a screen during a rally commemorating the annual Hezbollah Martyrs’ Day, in Beirut’s southern suburbs. Photo: Reuters/Aziz Taher
Hezbollah began in 1982 as an Islamist organization founded and shaped according to the ideological model of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The organization was founded to establish an Islamist regime in Lebanon and conduct a jihadist war against the enemies of Islam: the West and Israel. Hezbollah gradually “Lebanonized,” meaning it claimed to limit the military struggle to Lebanese territory, integrated into the Lebanese political system, and established an extensive civil infrastructure. This transformation was accompanied by a new discourse stressing its role as defender of Lebanon.
But Hezbollah’s Lebanonization has not in any way diluted or moderated its conception of Israel, with which it believes itself to be in a doomsday war. Hezbollah’s military empowerment since the withdrawal of the IDF in 2000 does not correspond with its discourse about defending Lebanon. Hezbollah’s involvement in the fighting since October 8 is not mere lip service, but a demonstration of its total commitment to what it perceives as its deterministic conflict with Israel.
Hezbollah’s enduring enmity towards Israel reflects the ideological concepts on which it was founded. The organization was established by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, and its establishment might be considered Iran’s only successful exporting of its revolution. The establishment of Hezbollah would also not have been possible had it not been for Baathist Syria, which allowed Iran to operate in Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley. Hafez Assad’s Syria enabled this as part of the “extensions” strategy it adopted after Operation Peace for Galilee, with the clear aim of exhausting the IDF and bringing about its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Iranian patronage has always been a pillar of strength for Hezbollah, but the most significant patronage it enjoyed was that of Syria. Damascus extended its protection to Hezbollah and guaranteed its continued existence as a military organization within the framework of the Ṭaif Agreement of 1989, which brought an end to the second Lebanese civil war. Syria has served for decades as a conduit for the supply of weapons to Hezbollah.
Since the 1980s, as the alliance with Syria tightened, Hezbollah underwent the process of “Lebanonization.” This process had three main elements. The first was the purported limiting of the armed struggle to within Lebanon’s geography, especially against the IDF’s continued presence in southern Lebanon. The second was the establishment of an extensive civilian arm that focused on providing for the needs of Lebanon’s Shiite community. The third was politicization, meaning the establishment of a political branch and integration into Lebanon’s parliamentary system.
Lebanonization did not, however, cause Hezbollah to forget its dual mission, anchored in its Islamist political and religious worldview: the establishment of an Islamist regime according to the model of the Islamic Republic in Iran on the one hand, and the continuation of the armed struggle against Israel on the other.
Hezbollah’s adherence to Islamist ideology, which in this case is distinctly anti-establishment, means striving to replace the sectarian regime with an Islamist one and perpetually bolstering its weapons supplies to support the armed struggle against Israel. Hezbollah made sure to present the IDF’s unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon as a military achievement of the “Islamic resistance in Lebanon” and not as the result of internal considerations by Israeli society. Following the withdrawal, Hezbollah had to place greater emphasis on the Lebanese dimension of its military struggle, and its discourse changed accordingly.
Until the IDF withdrawal, Hezbollah claimed that its military existence was in the name of liberating the soil of an occupied homeland. After the withdrawal, the organization began to stress the doctrine of defense of the homeland against “Israeli aggression,” with its military power aimed at creating a balance of terror between it and Israel.
As a result, Hezbollah engaged in a Lebanese political-national discourse that ostensibly placed its military existence at the heart of the Lebanese national consensus. This was summed up in three words: people, army, and resistance. The concept reflected the deepening of the Lebanonization trend and a real attempt on Hezbollah’s part to endear itself to Lebanese nationals under the pretense that its weapons were intended solely for defense of the Lebanese homeland.
Since May 2000, the doctrine of defense of the Lebanese homeland has been the common discourse among Hezbollah and its supporters in Lebanon. The adoption of this doctrine coincided with a political reorganization and a more prominent integration within the Lebanese political and public spheres. This was reflected in political alliances with Lebanese political parties and movements, especially among Maronite Christians, and the publication of a second political document in 2009 that for the first time declared Hezbollah’s renunciation of its mission to establish an Islamist regime in Lebanon.
As a military organization and a political movement, Hezbollah represents a totalitarian ideological-religious movement whose worldview is the bedrock of its existence. Whatever it may have said during the Lebanonization process, it is still as committed as it ever was to its two overarching original goals: the establishment of an Islamist regime in Lebanon and the continuation of an endless struggle against Israel. Giving up these goals would mean erasing its ideology, which would amount to destroying its existential essence as a totalitarian movement.
By claiming to have renounced its desire for the establishment of an Islamist regime in Lebanon and redefining its formidable arsenal of weapons as intended for defensive purposes, Hezbollah is conducting a sophisticated pragmatic campaign. Its object is first and foremost to neutralize internal opponents who fear a theocracy and to justify the continued possession of a vast store of weapons outside the state’s authority.
The strategy of balance that has characterized Hezbollah since the end of the second civil war remains a powerful statement of the movement’s adherence to its goals. The balance between maintaining the existence of the Lebanese state and continuing to possess an enormous supply of weapons is a practical formula that produces chronic crisis but does not constitute a renunciation of the struggle against Israel. Similarly, the omission of the demand for the establishment of an Islamist regime in Lebanon in no way implies that Hezbollah has renounced its Islamist ideology, as such a move would contradict its very soul.
Hezbollah joined the Israel-Hamas war one day after the Black Sabbath of October 7. Its participation, even on a local scale, so soon after the barbaric attack by the Hamas criminal terrorist organization on Israel, an attack that was conducted primarily against Israeli civilians and without any provocation on Israel’s part, puts Hezbollah’s doctrine of homeland defense into question. Its limited participation in the current fighting against Israel proves that Hezbollah remains faithful to its worldview and the indoctrination that has accompanied it for four decades. Its support of Hamas in its war against Israel shows that the amendment of a founding document or political-pragmatic discourse that takes circumstances into account does not reflect moderation or a fundamental change.
Indeed, Hezbollah’s joining of the fighting proves its adherence to its primary ideology of eternal struggle against Israel. Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, said in his first speech after October 7 that while the time is not yet ripe for an all-out confrontation, he is convinced that day will come. It is highly doubtful that the huge arsenal of weapons Hezbollah has amassed over the past two decades is intended solely for defensive purposes. While it has adapted its discourse to the needs of time and circumstance, no one should be deceived into believing it has lost sight of its ideological totalitarianism.
Hezbollah retains a conviction that it is capable of delivering a crushing blow to Israel. Following the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the scenes of Afghan citizens being crushed under the wheels of airplanes, Nasrallah assured his supporters that such scenes would be repeated at Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. Hezbollah is preparing, as it always has, for the doomsday battle with Israel. Its involvement in the fighting right now, however limited, proves that it remains committed to fulfilling its messianic mission to inflict a decisive defeat on Israel.
The process of Lebanonization has created a deceptive smokescreen of moderation that is entirely lacking in Hezbollah. Instead of trusting in false interpretations of Lebanonization, Israel should focus on Hezbollah’s obsession with military power and unwavering determination to destroy the Jewish State.
Dr. Yusri Khazran is senior lecturer in the Department of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at Shalem College and a research fellow at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University. He received his Ph.D. from Hebrew University, after which he was awarded a Fulbright Fellowship at Harvard University. Dr. Hazran is the author of The Druze Community and the Lebanese State: Between Resistance and Reconciliation (Routledge, 2014). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Despite the ‘Lebanonization’ of Hezbollah, It Still Wants to Destroy Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IDF: Mistakes Led to Opening Fire on Gazan Ambulances, Officer Dismissed
Khan Yunis. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
i24 News – The Israeli army has concluded its investigation into the tragic incident that occurred on the night of March 23, 2025 in Khan Yunis, in the south of the Gaza Strip, where Red Crescent rescue teams were targeted by Israeli gunfire, according to a press release by the Israel Defense Forces on Sunday.
The findings highlight a series of misjudgments and errors in judgement on the part of the IDF that led to this tragedy. According to the final report, the incident began when a force from the Golani Infantry Brigade’s Reconnaissance unit, engaged in anti-terrorist operations, spotted and neutralized what they identified as a Hamas vehicle. About an hour later, the same unit opened fire on vehicles “approaching rapidly and stopping near the troops, with passengers quickly disembarking.”
It was only after the shots were fired that they realized it was actually a fire truck and ambulances.
“Poor night visibility” is cited as a determining factor that led to this fatal mistake. The investigation specifies that “the deputy commander did not initially recognize the vehicles as ambulances. Only later, after approaching the vehicles and scanning them, was it discovered that these were indeed rescue teams.”
In a third incident that occurred fifteen minutes later, Israeli forces also fired upon a UN vehicle. The report characterizes this act as “due to operational errors in breach of regulations.”
These events strongly contrast with the initial report which portrayed the operation as a successful anti-terrorist action. The army now asserts that out of “fifteen Palestinians [who] were killed, six of whom were identified in a retrospective examination as Hamas terrorists.” However, the IDF stressed that there was no evidence of point-blank execution of ambulance workers.
“The forces also apprehended two pedestrians who raised suspicion, and released them subsequently,” the investigation found. “This indicates that the troops did not engage in indiscriminate fire but remained alert to respond to real threats identified by them.”
The investigation also reveals serious shortcomings in the military’s conduct after the ncident. The damaged vehicles were “crushed” on the spot, a decision that the military now acknowledges as “wrong.” Moreover, the first report submitted by the Reconnaissance Battalion’s deputy commander turned out to be “incomplete and inaccurate.”
In light of these conclusions, Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has ordered sanctions: the commander of the 14th Brigade, a reserve unit, will receive a disciplinary note in his personal file, while the deputy commander of the Golani Reconnaissance unit will be relieved of his duties.
The investigation stressed that the dismissed commander is a “highly respected officer, whose military service and personal story reflect a spirit of combat, volunteerism, and great dedication.”
The conclusions of this investigation, which highlight severe failures in the chain of command and non-compliance with identification procedures, have been forwarded to the military prosecutor’s office for further review.
“The IDF regrets the harm caused to uninvolved civilians,” the IDF said. “The examination process also serves as part of an ongoing effort to learn from operational incidents and reduce the likelihood of similar occurrences in the future. Existing protocols have been clarified and reinforced – emphasizing the need for heightened caution when operating near rescue forces and medical personnel, even in high-intensity combat zones.”
The post IDF: Mistakes Led to Opening Fire on Gazan Ambulances, Officer Dismissed first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
UN Hid Details of Official’s Travel Funding Amid Alleged Pro-Hamas Financing
Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, attends a side event during the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, March 26, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse
i24 News – The United Nations Human Rights Office appears to have disseminated intentionally deceptive information in an attempt to cover up travel funding that pro-Hamas organizations provided to a UN official.
UN special rapporteur for Palestinian rights Francesca Albanese took a politically-charged trip to Australia and New Zealand in November 2023. The trip included a fundraiser for a Palestinian lobby group, participation in media events, as well as meetings with pro-Palestinian politicians and civil society members, and pushing New Zealand’s sovereign wealth fund to divest from Israel.
Albanese has been accused of antisemitism by the American, French and German governments, among other entities.
Now, the Australian Friends of Palestine Association, which praised Hamas terror mastermind Yahya Sinwar as “incredibly moving,” claimed publicly that it had “sponsored” Albanese’s visit, and Free Palestine Melbourne, the Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network, and Palestinian Christians in Australia stated that they “supported” the trip. All four are lobbying groups.
i24NEWS asked various UN officials and entities for months whether pro-Hamas groups actually did fund the trip. Albanese repeatedly insisted the trip, estimated by the UN Watch NGO to cost around $22,000, was paid for by the UN, calling claims to the contrary “egregiously false.”
Finally, in July of last year, the UN Human Rights Office, acknowledging it was fully aware of documentation that pro-Hamas groups had said they sponsored or organized the trip, told i24NEWS that, “With respect to the Australia trip by the Special Rapporteur, her travel was funded by the UN.”
They ignored requests to provide any documentation showing that to be the case.
Since then, a six-person panel of Albanese’s peers, who have long attacked her accusers, was assigned the task of investigating a host of accusations against Albanese. In a letter written last month to UN Human Rights Council President Jurg Lauber by that panel, known as the UN Coordination Committee of Special Procedures, they finally acknowledged Albanese had taken “partial external funding for internal trips within Australia and New Zealand.”
i24NEWS asked the media offices for UN Human Rights and Special Procedures for clarity on what seemed to be contrary claims.
Like former US president Bill Clinton’s cagey testimony in the Lewinsky affair, when he famously remarked, “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” for the UN Human Rights Office and Albanese, it apparently depends upon what the meaning of the word “to” is.
The Special Procedures office told i24NEWS: “With regard to the Special Rapporteur’s visit to Australia, her travel was funded by the United Nations regular budget. The Coordination Committee of Special Procedures assessed the allegations concerning partial external funding for internal travel (the bolding of the words is theirs) within Australia and New Zealand and concluded that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct. The Committee noted that it is common practice for conference organizers to cover the participation costs of mandate holders, and such arrangements do not constitute a violation of the established standards.”
With that, the UN finally conceded Albanese had in fact received external funding after all.
In follow-up conversations, it became clear: the UN was drawing a distinction between funding for travel TO a country, and funding for travel WITHIN a country – a bizarre distinction they failed to make for a year and a half, almost certainly to avoid discussing the topic of Hamas-supporting groups paying for a UN official’s anti-Israel business travel.
Even with all this, the UN Human Rights Office continues to ignore requests to clarify which group or groups funded this trip, and how much they contributed. Accused by i24NEWS of lying, the Special Procedures Media Office said it was a “regrettable and unfair mischaracterization,” though it still made no attempt to reconcile why the UN made no previous mention of external funding, or why the funding for Albanese’s trip “to” Australia should be counted differently from “external funding for internal travel.”
Asked during a press briefing whether UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres would condemn UN spokespeople for intentionally misinforming the media and whether Guterres would support finally releasing the funding information surrounding the trip, Stephane Dujarric, Guterres’ spokesperson, said, “We support transparency in the activities of any official affiliated with United Nations.”
The post UN Hid Details of Official’s Travel Funding Amid Alleged Pro-Hamas Financing first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Former Israeli Prime Minister Bennett Hospitalized, In Stable Condition
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett attends a weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, May 29, 2022. Photo: Reuters/Gil Cohen-Magen
i24 News – After feeling unwell during a workout on Sunday morning former prime minister Naftali Bennett was admitted to a hospital and underwent a cardiac catheterization.
Bennett is reportedly in stable condition, and will remain at the Meir Medical Center in Kfar Sabar for further monitoring and treatment.
The incident occurred after Bennett participated in the celebrations Saturday night for the Mimouna, marking the end of Passover restrictions on leavened bread, at the home of attorney Hila Revach in the southern community of Be’er Ganim, near Ashkelon.
Likud lawmaker Osher Shekalim chose to attack Bennett in an X post, saying he was “Wishing the head of the former prime minister of the mandates government good health.” This refers to Bennett’s premiership in the fragmented previous government, after he only received seven seats in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament.
Shekalim said he was “wondering how someone who failed physical training at the age of 53 was able to manage seven war theaters at the same time. It is expected that he will disclose his medical file as required. Get well soon!”
Earlier this month, Bennett announced a party list under the temporary name “Bennett 2026.” In a statement released on his behalf, it was stated that if and when a decision is made to actually run for the elections, an official announcement will be made on the matter. Starting on October 7, 2023, Bennett has been interviewed extensively in the US and international media, and has worked for Israeli advocacy. His return, in a sense, to the public stage, when he is not serving in any public position, has raised questions over whether he plans to return to political life – and if so, with whom and in what framework.
The post Former Israeli Prime Minister Bennett Hospitalized, In Stable Condition first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login