Israel’s push to seize Lebanon and expand its northern border is justified, but public talk about this risks blurring ‘defense’ with annexation, carrying serious strategic and diplomatic costs.
ed note–as always, lots of ‘must knows’ that every war-weary Gentile with a vested interest in his/her own future survival needs to understand about all of this.
Firsto, ladies and Gentile-men, as appears on a daily basis here on this humble little informational endeavor, a ‘sine qua non’ that every Gentile must understand when it comes to evaluating the world today and the ‘shabby’ (to put it mildly) shape in which it finds itself as a result of the overwhelming and OVERBEARING influence that the Jews wield over global affairs, is the fact they they are liars, first, second, third, and everything after that. The lies that they exhale immediately become the oxygen that they breathe, ‘oxygen’ that is necessary for them in doing what they were sent here to do, which is to destroy all goodness and order on God’s green earth, going all the way back to Cain murdering Abel.
Now, having said that aforementioned ‘thingy’ involving ‘The Jews and Their Lies’, (hat tip to Martin Luther) and the manner in which all of this is related to the piece below, nota bene the following–
The reader will see in a microsecond that the argument (incantation) being put forth here is not that the Jews and their terrorist Jewish state should not steal Lebanon from its rightful owners, but rather that they should not talk about it publicly. Doing so puts Israel in a ‘bad light’ and exposes the Jews for what they are, i.e. murdering thieves, and therefore, at this time when the Gentile Spring is moving along like a freight train with no brakes, ‘corrective measures’ must be employed in hiding what it is that they, the ‘Children of Israel’ intend to do, and in fact, what they are doing at this very moment.
Jpost Editorial
Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Tuesday that Israel would occupy southern Lebanon up to the Litani River to create a ‘defensive buffer’ and would ‘control the remaining bridges and the security zone up to the Litani.’
A day earlier, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said on Israeli radio, ‘The new Israeli border must be the Litani.’ The Jerusalem Post, citing Reuters, also reported that Israel has destroyed five bridges over the river since March 13 and accelerated the demolition of homes in villages near the border.
These remarks and actions point to a shift in Israel’s declared policy.
Reuters reported that the IDF had previously described its ground activity as ‘limited, targeted raids’ near the border. However, Katz’s new language was far broader. Reuters and the Post also reported that Hezbollah drew Lebanon into the current regional war when it fired into Israel on March 2 and that its fighters have continued daily rocket and drone attacks while battling Israeli troops in southern Lebanese villages.
Israel has a strong case for refusing to return to the old reality. Northern communities cannot be asked to again live under the shadow of a heavily armed Hezbollah force sitting on the fence.
For two decades, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was supposed to keep the zone between the Blue Line and the Litani free of armed personnel, assets, and weapons other than those of the Lebanese state and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon. That did not happen. Hezbollah is entrenched, armed, and threatened. Israel paid the price.
That is why Jerusalem must be careful now. There is a major difference between enforcing a security zone and declaring a new border. Smotrich’s statement was reckless. It handed Israel’s enemies a line and blurred the distinction between a legitimate security campaign and a territorial project.
Israel must separate talk of defense from talk of annexation
The Post supports a rigorous, sustained effort to push Hezbollah away from Israel’s border and prevent its return. Israel is entitled to destroy and attack infrastructure, interdict routes used for weapons and fighters, and insist that any postwar arrangement finally enforce what Resolution 1701 required all along. A return to the old formula of promises on paper and Hezbollah rule on the ground would be intolerable.
But Israel should also say, clearly, that its objective is the security of Israeli communities and the removal of Hezbollah from the frontier. The cabinet should reject annexation language. Katz’s wording needs immediate clarification from the prime minister. If the government means a temporary military belt pending a new arrangement, it should say so.
Permanent Israeli control up to the Litani would carry a heavy price: a long occupation, endless attrition, diplomatic damage, and a self-inflicted collapse of Israel’s strongest argument, which is that Hezbollah and the Lebanese state violated an existing international framework.
Reuters reported that Katz said buildings near the border were being cleared and demolished ‘to create a defensive buffer and push the threat away from communities’ and that he had previously said there could be no homes or residents in areas of southern Lebanon where there was ‘terror.’
Whatever the military necessity of specific actions such as this, public language of this kind invites strategic confusion and feeds the impression that Israel has moved from defense to the conquest of Lebanon by force.
A serious government would now define an end state. Hezbollah must be kept north of the Litani. The Lebanese army and any international mechanisms must prove that they can keep the area clear of Hezbollah. Israel must retain freedom to act against renewed entrenchment. Northern residents must be able to return home with security.
Redrawing the border is something else. It would entangle Israel in a mission far larger than protecting Kiryat Shmona, Metula, and the Galilee. It would unify Lebanese opinion around Hezbollah while the group and its sponsors in Iran are under pressure. It would also turn a war that Israel can explain into one it would have a difficult time justifying.
Israel needs firmness on the northern front, but it needs transparency, too. The country should finish this campaign with Hezbollah pushed back, deterrence restored, and the terms of 1701 enforced in fact. It should finish with disciplined goals and reject slogans about annexation that trade away strategic sense for applause on the fringe.