Soldier stands guard next to poster with images of late Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and late senior Hezbollah official Hashem Safieddine, at the entrance of Beirut’s southern suburbs in Lebanon, after a ceasefire between Israel and Iran-backed group Hezbollah took effect on Nov. 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) stretches the meaning of the word “interim.” Deployed in 1978 as a peacekeeping force, its “temporary” mandate has persisted for 47 years.

During this period, three major wars have erupted between Israel and militias in Lebanon, and UNIFIL has failed to pre-empt, prevent, or resolve any of them. Costing $500 million annually, UNIFIL is an ineffective expenditure. When the UN convenes to renew its mandate in August, it should disband the force permanently.

Without UNIFIL, Lebanon’s government would be compelled to take responsibility for its sovereignty. In 2006, UNIFIL’s mandate was expanded from 2,000 to 15,000 troops, with the expectation that the increased personnel and firepower would support the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in deploying south of the Litani River and keeping the area free of Hezbollah and its weapons.

However, UNIFIL peaked at 10,000 troops and remained as ineffective as before. Since its inception, UNIFIL has not engaged outlaw forces in any firefights or law enforcement actions. Instead, it focused on searching for Hezbollah’s arms caches and reporting them to the LAF — an effort in which it consistently failed.

Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy militia, thwarted UNIFIL’s efforts by sending military-age men in civilian clothing to burn tires, block roads, and throw stones whenever UN peacekeepers approached arms depots. When confronted, UNIFIL personnel did not use force to proceed; they simply retreated to their bases. As a result, Hezbollah built tunnels with entrances near UNIFIL bases, exploiting the proximity to deter Israeli strikes due to the risk of harming UN personnel.

Disbanding UNIFIL would also force Lebanon’s government to engage directly with Israel. Lebanon absurdly refuses any direct talks — military or otherwise — with Israel. UNIFIL serves as a conduit, hosting officers from both sides at its coastal base in Naqoura, across the border from Israel’s Rosh Hanikra.

Even in these UN-mediated meetings, Lebanese officers childishly address the UN mediator rather than their Israeli counterparts, despite knowing the Israelis are present. The world should not spend $500 million a year to facilitate such immature behavior. Adversaries worldwide maintain hotlines for communication without implying normalization or recognition. Lebanon should do the same.

Dissolving UNIFIL would also increase pressure on Hezbollah. With UNIFIL doing little military work in south Lebanon, it has shifted to funding civilian projects, such as digging wells, purchasing generators, and building roads. These initiatives, funded by UNIFIL’s $500 million budget, indirectly support Hezbollah’s position. Without this funding, Hezbollah would face greater pressure to act responsibly, prioritize economic development for its supporters, and avoid conflict with Israel in favor of peace.

Critics, including some within the US government and foreign policy circles, oppose disbanding UNIFIL. They argue for a gradual drawdown, with a phase-out over three years. However, there is no logistical justification for such a prolonged timeline. The US withdrew 50,000 troops from Iraq in six months; withdrawing 10,000 lightly armed UNIFIL personnel is a simpler task. All that is needed is the political will to end this outdated mission.

In 1978, Israel invaded south Lebanon to protect its northern border. Twenty-two years later, in 2000, Israel withdrew unilaterally, without an agreement with the Lebanese government, which was dominated by the Assad regime in Damascus. The United Nations established the Blue Line to demarcate the border between the two states, and then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan informed the Security Council that Israel had fully complied with UN Security Council Resolution 425, which mandated the withdrawal.

Even at the pivotal moment of de-escalation in 2000, UNIFIL neither disarmed Hezbollah nor dissolved itself. Instead, then as now, it functions as an entrenched component of Lebanon’s dysfunctional and corrupt state apparatus.

The Lebanese government has already urged world capitals to renew UNIFIL’s mandate at the UN’s August meeting. Local media reports suggest that the US Envoy to Syria informed Beirut officials that UNIFIL would remain, though this stance appears inconsistent with Washington’s current policy deliberations.

France, which contributes thousands of troops to UNIFIL, also opposes disbanding the force, offering no clear rationale for maintaining the status quo. Historically, Paris has maintained a conciliatory approach toward Hezbollah and played a key role in repeatedly renewing UNIFIL’s mandate.

This August, Washington must take a firm stand. Dismantling UNIFIL would foster accountability and progress in Lebanon, Israel, and the broader region.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

Trucks carrying aid move, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hussam Al-Masri

No Proof Hamas Stole Aid? The New York Times Says So.

That should have been the headline of The New York Times’ most absurd claim to date: that there is “no proof” Hamas routinely stole humanitarian aid.

The real headline, published July 26, reads like satire: “No Proof Hamas Routinely Stole U.N. Aid, Israeli Military Officials Say.”

Let’s be clear: this isn’t a buried quote. It’s the article’s central claim — based, of course, on anonymous “military sources.” Unnamed. Unverifiable.

Meanwhile, Israeli military officials who are willing to go on record — like IDF spokesperson Nadav Shoshani — say the opposite. In fact, Shoshani stated quite clearly that the NYT headline is “not true.”

But once again, the Times asks us to take their word for it. Just like it did with other anonymously sourced claims later flatly denied by Israeli officials. No evidence. No names. Just trust us — we’re The New York Times.

 Hamas steals aid
 IDF officials say so on record
 @nytimes cites anonymous “Israeli sources” denying
 Then includes visual proof of Hamas operatives looting or “securing” trucks

You couldn’t make this up. pic.twitter.com/OpE6ubJEti

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 27, 2025

Except there is evidence. A lot of it.

Here is video of Hamas operatives hijacking UN aid trucks:

Here are Palestinian civilians in Gaza telling reporters Hamas is stealing aid:

Here is footage of Hamas beating Palestinians who dared reach the aid before they could:

It’s all public. Verifiable. On record. Not anonymous. Not hearsay.

So why would The New York Times ignore it?

It’s hard not to conclude this is yet another attempt to reframe Hamas — not as the armed, authoritarian, and internationally proscribed terror group it is, but as a tragically misunderstood local authority. A victim of circumstance, rather than the driving force behind Gaza’s suffering.

But facts matter. So does accountability.

When journalists obscure both, they’re not reporting the news. They’re laundering the reputation of a terror group.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Harvard University has announced new partnerships with Israeli academic institutions, a move which appears aimed at reversing an impression that the institution is ideologically anti-Zionist and content with antisemitic discrimination being an allegedly daily occurrence on its campus.

As first reported by The Harvard Crimson, Harvard will hold a study abroad program, in partnership with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, for undergraduate students and a postdoctoral fellowship in which Harvard Medical School faculty will mentor and train newly credentialed Israeli scientists in biomedical research as preparation for the next stages of their careers. The campus paper — which in 2022 endorsed the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel — said the programs constitute a “dramatic expansion of the university’s academic and institutional ties to Israel.”

Speaking to the Crimson, Harvard vice provost for international affairs Mark Elliot trumpeted the announcement as a positive development and, notably, as a continuation, not a beginning, of Harvard’s “engagement with institutions of higher education across Israel.” Elliot also said Harvard is planning “increased academic collaboration across the region in the coming years.”

The new partnerships with Israel come only months after Harvard paused its relationship with a higher education institution located in the West Bank. They also coincide with the university’s titanic legal fight against the federal government to reclaim over $3 billion worth of taxpayer-funded research grants and contracts the Trump administration impounded to pressure school officials into a process of rehabilitation and reform that will see it discontinue a slew of practices conservatives have cited as causing campus antisemitism, as well as the hollowing out of American values.

Since that first step, the Trump administration has continued backing Harvard into a corner.

In June, the Trump administration issued it a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.

Sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, it charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a deluge of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus. It concluded with a threat to cancel all federal funding for Harvard.

Amid this policy offensive, interim Harvard president Alan Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”

Garber “did not discuss how close a deal could be,” the Crimson reported, “and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying out the steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the university and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”

In a new conciliatory move reported by the Crimson, Harvard closed its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, packing up the staff and transferring them to what will become, the Crimson said, a “new Office of Culture and Community.” It added that Harvard has “worked to strip all references to DEI … from their websites and official titles.”

Harvard will continue dealing with the fallout of its campus antisemitism problem for the foreseeable future.

Earlier this month, it was sued by a Jewish student who claims that he was exposed to antisemitic abuse because the university refused to intervene and correct a hostile environment even as his bullies’ misconduct escalated to include violence.

The mammoth complaint, totaling 124 pages, lays out the case that the university miscarried justice in the aftermath of two students’ public assault on recent Harvard Business School graduate Yoav Segev during the fall semester of the 2023-2024 academic year — just weeks after the Oct. 7 massacre — by refusing to discipline them and even rewarding them the university’s highest honors.

Segev endured a mobbing of pro-Hamas activists led by Ibrahim Bharmal and Elom Tettey-Tamaklo, who stalked him across Harvard Yard before encircling him and screaming “Shame! Shame! Shame!” as he struggled to break free from the mass of bodies which surrounded him. Video of the incident, widely viewed online at the time, showed the crush of people shoving keffiyehs — traditional headdresses worn by men in the Middle East that in some circles have come to symbolize Palestinian nationalism — in the face of the student, whom they had identified as Jewish.

“This malicious, violent, and antisemitic conduct violated several university policies — such as its anti-discrimination and anti-bullying policies — and it prompted criminal charges,” the complaint says. “No one doubts for a second that Harvard would have taken swift, aggressive, and public actions to enforce its policies had the victim been one of Harvard’s ‘favored’ minorities … Harvard’s antisemitic discrimination against Mr. Segev is far more sinister than inaction and indifference. Harvard did everything it could to defend, protect, and reward the assailants; to impede the criminal investigation; and to prevent Mr. Segev from obtaining administrative relief from the university.”

It continues, “Harvard’s antisemitic intent is obvious. Several of its faculty publicly supported the attacker and tried to blame the victim (because, the faculty said, his Jewish presence was ‘threatening’ to other students). And, of course, hundreds of rabidly anti-Israel students disrupting campus life pressured the Harvard administration. Ultimately, and shamefully, the university kowtowed to the antisemitic mob it had allowed to take over its campus.”

Alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, breach of contract, and conspiracy to deny civil rights, the suit demands all relevant recompense, including damages and the reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.