RSS
Israel-Hezbollah War: To Cease or Not to Cease
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem leads prayers during funeral of Hezbollah senior leader Ibrahim Aqil and Hezbollah member Mahmoud Hamad, who were killed in Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, in Beirut, Lebanon, Sept. 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
There were reasons for Israel to have accepted an American-authored “ceasefire” agreement with Hezbollah.
First, Iran is Israel’s chief security priority, not Hezbollah. In addition, Israel has been fighting the longest war of its modern existence, and its forces are being stretched. During that war, Hezbollah has been helping Hamas by diverting Israel’s military capability and attention; this ceasefire will allow Israel to put the focus of its deployment back on Gaza.
And not to be underestimated is the US “soft embargo” on weapons to Israel. There are rumors that the Biden administration has said that it will ensure deliveries on time if Israel agrees to the Lebanon plan. It would not be in Israel’s interest to further aggravate the outgoing administration.
There were also reasons for Israel to reject the current incarnation of a “ceasefire,” beginning with the way the signatories are positioned. Israel and the US have an agreement; the US and Lebanon have a separate one, although the language is the same; and there is an “authorized” non-Hezbollah representative as a third party.
The US tried the same fiction during the “Maritime Border Agreement” talks — separate US-Israel and US-Lebanon agreements, and a nod from Hezbollah. It failed when Hezbollah decided to break it.
Hezbollah had control not only of territory in the south, in which it had buried its arsenal, but also of the government in Beirut. Its control of territory is — happily — diminished, but it retains its place in Beirut. There is no assurance that Hezbollah will do other than what it chooses to do, and no assurance that the “Government of Lebanon” can operate independently.
According to the agreement, “both nations” — meaning Lebanon and Israel — retain their “inherent right of self-defense.” The kindest way to look at Lebanon is to say that it is occupied by Hezbollah, in which case, it has no ability to defend itself and requires rescue from its occupier. Neither the UN nor the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have that capability. Israel might, but only if the international community agrees that Hezbollah has to go. No such policy has been articulated.
Moving through the terms, they are precisely those of the failed UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of 2006. Reports say that both Israel and Lebanon simply “reaffirmed” their commitment to the resolution. Hezbollah, it seems, simply reaffirmed its commitment to a “ceasefire.” Under the terms of 1701, the LAF was charged with enforcing conditions including, “Any other armed groups will be disarmed, and unauthorized military facilities or weapons caches will be dismantled.”
The LAF failed to do this in 2006, and there is no reason to believe it will succeed in 2024. Although it has received millions of US dollars, the US has had no influence on the political leaning of LAF commanders and troops.
Next, Israel has 60 days in which to operate in southern Lebanon and then gradually withdraw to the Blue Line (the UN-demarcated Lebanon-Israel border). Hezbollah has been tunneling and accumulating weapons inside civilian infrastructure — houses, mosques, schools — for 28 years. What if the job isn’t done in 60 days?
Hezbollah can wait 60 days, regroup its commanders and forces in Beirut, and then plan for its future. There is no international penalty on Hezbollah for its terrorist behavior or its violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) for abusing the civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon.
An “Oversight Committee” will “oversee” compliance. That was, in fact, the job of UNIFIL — which not only failed, but operated in conjunction with Hezbollah to protect it and enhance its capabilities. Now the Oversight Committee will report violations of the new agreement to — wait for it — UNIFIL.
And finally, the US will facilitate indirect talks between Israel and Lebanon to finalize a “mutually agreed-upon land border.” This is obscurantism.
There is already a UN-demarcated land border between Israel and Lebanon, but there is also an unmentioned maritime border — encompassing vast natural gas reserves. This has been a separate but related bone of contention (see Maritime Border Agreement, above).
That covers the main points in the agreement, but what about the fundamental points that are NOT in the agreement?
There is no mention of eliminating, or even extracting a price from Hezbollah — an Iranian-funded proxy organization that has wrecked the once-prosperous nation of Lebanon, and threatens Israel as well as the broader region.
Speaking of the broader region, there is no mention of controlling the Iranian military supply lines that run through Syria and into Lebanon. Is that the responsibility of the LAF? UNIFIL?
The IDF, in conjunction with a deconfliction agreement with Russia, has worked to keep Iranian weapons out of Lebanon. Will that continue? Who says?
There is no mention of a peace agreement, or Lebanese recognition of the State of Israel, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed in 1967.
Without those, everything agreed to is temporary and lives at the convenience of organizations and countries uninterested in peace — but very much interested in the elimination of the State of Israel.
A ceasefire is not peace.
Survival is not victory.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly magazine.
The post Israel-Hezbollah War: To Cease or Not to Cease first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza
Hamas terrorists carry grenade launchers at the funeral of Marwan Issa, a senior Hamas deputy military commander who was killed in an Israeli airstrike during the conflict between Israel and Hamas, in the central Gaza Strip, Feb. 7, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed
The Hamas-run Interior Ministry in Gaza has warned residents not to cooperate with the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, as the terror group seeks to reassert its grip on the enclave amid mounting international pressure to accept a US-brokered ceasefire.
“It is strictly forbidden to deal with, work for, or provide any form of assistance or cover to the American organization (GHF) or its local or foreign agents,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement Thursday.
“Legal action will be taken against anyone proven to be involved in cooperation with this organization, including the imposition of the maximum penalties stipulated in the applicable national laws,” the statement warns.
The GHF released a statement in response to Hamas’ warnings, saying the organization has delivered millions of meals “safely and without interference.”
“This statement from the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry confirms what we’ve known all along: Hamas is losing control,” the GHF said.
The GHF began distributing food packages in Gaza in late May, implementing a new aid delivery model aimed at preventing the diversion of supplies by Hamas, as Israel continues its defensive military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group.
The initiative has drawn criticism from the UN and international organizations, some of which have claimed that Jerusalem is causing starvation in the war-torn enclave.
Israel has vehemently denied such accusations, noting that, until its recently imposed blockade, it had provided significant humanitarian aid in the enclave throughout the war.
Israeli officials have also said much of the aid that flows into Gaza is stolen by Hamas, which uses it for terrorist operations and sells the rest at high prices to Gazan civilians.
According to their reports, the organization has delivered over 56 million meals to Palestinians in just one month.
Hamas’s latest threat comes amid growing international pressure to accept a US-backed ceasefire plan proposed by President Donald Trump, which sets a 60-day timeline to finalize the details leading to a full resolution of the conflict.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump announced that Israel has agreed to the “necessary conditions” to finalize a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, though Israel has not confirmed this claim.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to meet with Trump next week in Washington, DC — his third visit in less than six months — as they work to finalize the terms of the ceasefire agreement.
Even though Trump hasn’t provided details on the proposed truce, he said Washington would “work with all parties to end the war” during the 60-day period.
“I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE,” he wrote in a social media post.
Since the start of the war, ceasefire talks between Jerusalem and Hamas have repeatedly failed to yield enduring results.
Israeli officials have previously said they will only agree to end the war if Hamas surrenders, disarms, and goes into exile — a demand the terror group has firmly rejected.
“I am telling you — there will be no Hamas,” Netanyahu said during a speech Wednesday.
For its part, Hamas has said it is willing to release the remaining 50 hostages — fewer than half of whom are believed to be alive — in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war.
While the terrorist group said it is “ready and serious” to reach a deal that would end the war, it has yet to accept this latest proposal.
In a statement, the group said it aims to reach an agreement that “guarantees an end to the aggression, the withdrawal [of Israeli forces], and urgent relief for our people in the Gaza Strip.”
According to media reports, the proposed 60-day ceasefire would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a surge in humanitarian aid, and the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, with US and mediator assurances on advancing talks to end the war — though it remains unclear how many hostages would be freed.
For Israel, the key to any deal is the release of most, if not all, hostages still held in Gaza, as well as the disarmament of Hamas, while the terror group is seeking assurances to end the war as it tries to reassert control over the war-torn enclave.
The post Hamas Warns Against Cooperation with US Relief Efforts In Bid to Restore Grip on Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest
Police block a street as pro-Palestinian demonstrators gather to protest British Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s plans to proscribe the “Palestine Action” group in the coming weeks, in London, Britain, June 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jaimi Joy
British lawmakers voted Wednesday to designate Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, following the group’s recent vandalizing of two military aircraft at a Royal Air Force base in protest of the government’s support for Israel.
Last month, members of the UK-based anti-Israel group Palestine Action broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, a county west of London, and vandalized two Voyager aircraft used for military transport and refueling — the latest in a series of destructive acts carried out by the organization.
Palestine Action has regularly targeted British sites connected to Israeli defense firm Elbit Systems as well as other companies in Britain linked to Israel since the start of the conflict in Gaza in 2023.
Under British law, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has the authority to ban an organization if it is believed to commit, promote, or otherwise be involved in acts of terrorism.
Passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 385 to 26 in the lower chamber — the House of Commons — the measure is now set to be reviewed by the upper chamber, the House of Lords, on Thursday.
If approved, the ban would take effect within days, making it a crime to belong to or support Palestine Action and placing the group on the same legal footing as Al Qaeda, Hamas, and the Islamic State under UK law.
Palestine Action, which claims that Britain is an “active participant” in the Gaza conflict due to its military support for Israel, condemned the ban as “an unhinged reaction” and announced plans to challenge it in court — similar to the legal challenges currently being mounted by Hamas.
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, belonging to a proscribed group is a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison or a fine, while wearing clothing or displaying items supporting such a group can lead to up to six months in prison and/or a fine of up to £5,000.
Palestine Action claimed responsibility for the recent attack, in which two of its activists sprayed red paint into the turbine engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft and used crowbars to inflict additional damage.
According to the group, the red paint — also sprayed across the runway — was meant to symbolize “Palestinian bloodshed.” A Palestine Liberation Organization flag was also left at the scene.
On Thursday, local authorities arrested four members of the group, aged between 22 and 35, who were charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, as well as conspiracy to commit criminal damage.
Palestine Action said this latest attack was carried out as a protest against the planes’ role in supporting what the group called Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza.
At the time of the attack, Cooper condemned the group’s actions, stating that their behavior had grown increasingly aggressive and resulted in millions of pounds in damages.
“The disgraceful attack on Brize Norton … is the latest in a long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action,” Cooper said in a written statement.
“The UK’s defense enterprise is vital to the nation’s national security and this government will not tolerate those that put that security at risk,” she continued.
The post UK Lawmakers Move to Designate Palestine Action as Terrorist Group Following RAF Vandalism Protest first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians
Palestinians collect aid supplies from the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, June 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-backed nonprofit operating aid distribution centers in the Gaza Strip, is pushing back forcefully against an Associated Press report alleging that its contractors opened fire on Palestinian civilians.
The GHF is accusing the AP of withholding key evidence and relying on a “disgruntled former contractor” as a central source.
“In response, we are pursuing legal action,” the organization said in a statement released Wednesday.
GHF said it conducted an “immediate investigation” after being contacted by the AP, reviewing time-stamped video footage and sworn witness testimony. The group concluded that the allegations were “categorically false,” stating that no civilians were fired upon at any of their distribution sites and that the gunfire heard in the AP’s video came from Israeli forces operating outside the vicinity.
“What is most troubling is that the AP refused to share the full video with us prior to publication, despite the seriousness of the allegations,” the statement read. “If they believed their own reporting, they should have provided us with the footage so we could take immediate and appropriate action.”
The nonprofit’s public rebuttal raises sharp questions about the AP’s reporting process, suggesting the outlet declined to engage with the organization in good faith and instead leaned on a source GHF describes as having been terminated “for misconduct” weeks prior. The group also claimed the AP’s recent coverage of its activities had begun to “echo narratives advanced by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health.”
The AP has not yet responded publicly to the GHF’s accusations or provided clarification about its decision not to share the video footage before publication. The original report alleged that American contractors employed by GHF had fired weapons near or toward civilians.
The GHF statement confirmed that a contractor seen shouting in the AP’s video had been removed from operations, though the group insisted this was unrelated to any violence and did not constitute evidence of wrongdoing.
GHF, which describes its mission as delivering food to Gaza “safely, directly, and without interference,” said it remains committed to transparency but would not allow its operations to be “derailed by misinformation.”
The dispute highlights the fraught information environment in Gaza, where limited access and competing narratives frequently complicate the verification of on-the-ground events.
The post US-backed Gaza Relief NGO Vows ‘Legal Action’ Against AP Claim Group Fired on Palestinian Civilians first appeared on Algemeiner.com.