Hizbullah Hiding Weapons under Buildings in South Lebanon

The Hizbullah hides weapons and ammunition underneath homes in south Lebanon. This was one of the reasons for Hizbullah's relative success against Israel in the 2006 Lebanon war. Israel warned residents of south Lebanon to evacuate the area in view of coming Israeli attacks in an effort to win the release of Israeli soldiers taken captive by the Hizb and to destroy as much as possible of the Hizb's weapons stores. Most residents did evacuate and a number of houses were struck by Israel, with resulting secondary explosions indicating the presence of ammunition/weapons stores. However, the evidence of such stores was widely denied, especially by the anti-Israel media in the West and by "leftist" groups --sometimes in the guise of "human rights" & "peace"-- and by a number of Western governments. Neither Israel's assertions of weapons stored in homes illegally according to international law, nor the photos and other evidence provided by Israel could convince those who fanatically wanted to believe in Israel's inherent evil. To be frank, all this international criticism, albeit ignorant, unjust and hypocritical, does have a restraining effect on Israel's exercise of military power, which obviously helped Hizbullah in the 2006 war. Now a report in Il Sole-24 Ore tells us that again today the Hizb is illegally storing weapons in buildings in southern Lebanon.

The UN Security Council assigned the UNIFIL [UN interim Force in Lebanon] to supervise the cease-fire after the Lebanon War of the summer of 2006. This was in addition to previous assignments, in all of which UNIFIL had failed.

Following the July/August 2006 crisis, the Council enhanced the Force and decided that in addition to the original mandate, it would, among other things, monitor the cessation of hostilities; accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the south of Lebanon; and extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons. [here. This official UN site links to Sec. Council res 1701; in it see paragraphs 8, 11,14,15]

UNIFIL was also supposed [paragraphs 11b, 11e, 14] to help the Lebanese army take control of southern Lebanon --an area under Hizbullah control before 2006-- and to help it prevent weapons not authorized by the Lebanese govt from entering the country. In fact, the Lebanese army does not go into south Lebanon [south of the Litani River] without Hizb permission, nor does UNIFIL travel freely in the country. Nor has the Lebanese army or UNIFIL been effective in keeping Hizbullah from bringing weapons into the country. These weapons, including long distance rockets that can strike anywhere in Israel, have been brought in and many of them are stored in southern Lebanon south of the Litani, despite the assurances of SC res 1701. Again, weapons heavy and light have been stored under civilian buildings, as occurred up to and including the 2006 war. The fact that weapons are being stored under buildings now supports Israel's charge of the same during the 2006 war.

. . . in a country in which the police and regular army are in part connected with Hizbullah and Syrian secret services, there is no doubt that --especially in the southern region between the Litani River and the Israeli border (an area where the [UN] blue helmets are stationed) not even the al-Qaeda cells present in a couple of Palestinian refugee camps near Tyre could succeed in carrying out attacks and moving through the territory without the Shiite militias [Hizbullah] and Damascus' agents being informed of it. The relations between UNIFIL and Hizbullah have progressively worsened in recent years due to the numerous weapons and explosives depositories hidden by the militiamen under the buildings, which have sometimes exploded because they were stored in a faulty manner or due to sabotage attributed to the Israelis. The latest episode took place in November in the sector assigned to the Italian contingent, bringing back to the forefront the substantial failure of UNIFIL which --based on Resolution 1701-- was supposed to disarm Hizbullah.

This disarmament was never performed even if the command [of UNIFIL] at Naqoura attributes that task to the Lebanese forces that, in order to perform it, could ask for support from the blue helmets. In practice, no one has ever tried to take away weapons from the Hizbullah which --on the other hand-- has been reinforced [since 2006], restoring its rocket arsenals and even acquiring Iranian missiles capable of striking all Israeli territory, not only the Galilee. Two weeks ago, visiting Beirut, UN secretary-general Ban-Ki Moon, confirmed the need to disarm Hizbullah, asking all militias to give up their arsenals and saying that he was "concerned" by the Lebanese situation. [Il Sole-24 Ore, 28 January 2012, Gianandrea Gaiani]

In the original

. . . in un Paese nel quale polizia ed esercito regolari sono in parte legati a Hezbollah e servizi segreti siriani non c'è dubbio che, soprattutto nella regione meridionale tra il Fiume Litani e il confine israeliano (area di schieramento dei caschi blu) neppure le cellule di al Qaeda presenti in un paio di campi profughi palestinesi vicino a Tiro riuscirebbero a compiere attentati e a muoversi sul territorio senza che i miliziani sciiti e gli agenti di Damasco ne siano informati. I rapporti tra Unifil ed Hezbollah sono peggiorati progressivamente negli ultimi anni a causa dei numerosi depositi di armi ed esplosivi occultati dai miliziani sotto gli edifici, che a volte sono esplosi perché stoccati in modo errato o a causa di sabotaggi attribuiti agli israeliani. L'ultimo episodio è accaduto in novembre nel settore assegnato al contingente italiano riportando alla ribalta il sostanziale fallimento di Unifil che in base alla Risoluzione 1701 avrebbe dovuto disarmare Hezbollah.

Un disarmo mai attuato anche se il comando di Naqoura attribuisce tale compito alle forze libanesi che per espletarlo potrebbero chiedere il supporto ai caschi blu. Nella pratica nessuno ha mai cercato di sottrarre armi agli Hezbollah che invece si sono rafforzati ripristinando gli arsenali di razzi e acquisendo persino missili iraniani in grado di colpire tutto il territorio israeliano e non solo la Galilea. Due settimane or sono, in visita a Beirut, il Segretario generale dell'Onu Banki-moon ha ribadito la necessità di disarmare Hezbollah chiedendo a tutte le milizie di rinunciare al loro arsenale e dicendosi ''preoccupato'' per la situazione libanese.[Il Sole-24 Ore, 28 Gennaio 2012, Gianandrea Gaiani]

This article tells us several things:
1) The Hizbullah hides weapons and explosives in civilian buildings thereby endangering civilians --non-combatants-- and in violation of the laws of war. This supports charges that Israel made against Hizbullah during the 2006 war;
2) the Hizb has rearmed since the 2006 war, in fact with more weapons than before that war. The border with Syria has been porous since the cease fire in August 2006, enabling Iran to ship heavy weapons through Syria to the Hizb;
3) Neither the Lebanese army nor UNIFIL ever tried to disarm Hizbullah, although SC res 1701 called for disarmament of militias in Lebanon.
4) foreign states have shipped weapons, including heavy weapons into Lebanon since 2006, although this violates UN SC res. 1701. These states have principally been Iran and Syria;
5) UN Security Council res. 1701 has failed.
The Lebanese army was obviously not capable of performing such disarmament as called for, nor did it ask for help from UNIFIL for this purpose. Of course you probably knew all this but now it is confirmed by a serious journalist. Moreover, Ban-Ki Moon is "concerned." Sheikh Nasrallah, head of the Hizb, responded sarcastically, "This concern reassures us and pleases us." UN SC res. 1701 failed to stop Hizb rearmament, failed to protect Lebanese sovereignty and independence against Hizbullah and Syria, and failed to keep bring peace or advance peace between Israel and Lebanon.
Moreover, since US diplomacy [through Condoleezza Rice] was a major force in negotiating 1701, this was also a failure for US diplomacy, unless US diplomacy really wanted the results that have eventuated.

One more point. Nasrallah asserts: "We confirm that our choice is the way of resistance and the weapons of resistance." ["Confermiamo che la nostra scelta sono la via della resistenza e le armi della resistenza'']. This begs the question: What is Resistance anyway? Is Nasrallah's resistance, the Hizb's resistance, the same as that of the French Maquis in WW2 and of its leaders, such as Jean Moulin? In fact, Hizbullah opposes the independence of its own country, Lebanon, acting to assert Iranian domination over Lebanon. Furthermore, can anyone imagine Jean Moulin taking pride in murdering German civilians, including children, as Hizbullah [and Fatah and Hamas, etc] take pride in murdering Jews and Jewish children, as the Nazis did? Here we have a case of semantic subversion in which these Arab/Muslim terrorists try to steal the favorable Western view of the anti-Nazi resistance in WW2 in behalf of murderous, well-armed organizations essentially different in character from the WW2 Resistance and for purposes that are kindred to Nazi purposes.
- - - - - - -
Quotes from Moon and Nasrallah found in the Il Sole article cited above.

The UN Descends Deeper into Barbarism -- Universal Human Rights Go in the Trash

UPDATING 12-12&19&21-2010; 1-28-2011 see at bottom

The UN. . . has now become a permanent locus of the denial of human rights.

L’Onu . . . ormai è diventata sede permanente di negazione dei diritti umani.
Fiamma Nirenstein, Il Giornale, 9 December 2010

The UN never ceases to amaze. When will decent people realize that the UN now works against all the lofty and noble purposes set forth in its charter? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgated by the UN 62 years ago has long been a dead letter. Yet the stinking zombie corpse of the UN's human rights pretensions, the so-called UN "Human Rights Council", struts and preens in its lair in Geneva, undermining human rights in fact throughout the world. It is dominated by the OIC [organization of the Islamic conference] which in turn denies the very principle of human rights, and instead promotes the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

Long ago, Gaglione and Yeselson pointed out that the UN was a "dangerous place" [in their book of that name] where agitation and incitement for war were given free rein. They wrote that the UN had as much to do with peace as a battleship or an atomic bomb. Nothing has changed in the nearly 40 years since they published their book. Let us clearly assert and affirm that the UN and its dominant member states are enemies of peace. Since the "log-rolling" effect of even a large, determined minority in any assembly where votes are counted can be dominant, the UN General Assembly is an enemy of peace. Hence, judging by its opposition to its own stated goals and purposes, peace, human rights, and so on, the UN is not a legitimate body. Only those who are fond of its monumental Orwellian hypocrisy, its turning all its judgments inside out and upside down, could deny that assertion.

The latest UN offense, pointed out by Fiamma Nirenstein, is that the UN removed homosexuality from a list of personal traits for which member states should protect persons from extra-judicial, arbitrary and summary executions on a discriminatory basis. Such traits were ethnic, religious and linguistic belonging, homeless children, homosexuals, etc. The resolution called on member states to protect the right to life of all human beings by investigating these wrongful killings, especially those of the groups just mentioned. Now, a recent amendment to the relevant resolution removes homosexuals from the class of persons who should be protected from such killings by member states. Now since Islam mandates killing homosexuals by Islamic law, and such Muslim states as Saudi Arabia legally practice such executions, etc., this amendment comes as an encouragement for more murder. It is a kind of authorization.

I am aware of course that homosexuality is more prevalent in Islamic lands than in most other places. This is in part because of the degraded and segregated state of women in most Islamic lands. Moreover, some forms of homosexual activity are not recognized as such and are indeed practiced by powerful persons in society and govt. But a charge of homosexuality constitutes one of the weapons that repressive govts in those countries can use against their opposition, whether or not a person accused of homosexuality does in fact practice it.

More important is that the UN is now an enemy of humanity and should be recognized as such, as Fiamma Nirenstein does.
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 12-12-2009 A Washington Post editorial of 1 April 2009 exposes the hypocrisy of Arab League demands that Israel be held accountable for alleged violations of international law. The Arab League session in Doha, Qatar, in March 2009 featured praise and defense of Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, already indicted by the ICC [international criminal court] for war crimes in Darfur, western Sudan. The UN connection is that UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon was present at the Arab League meeting, together with al-Bashir, and did not object to al-Bashir's presence or have anything to say by way of urging the Arab League to urge al-Bashir to turn himself over to the ICC [at least not in public as far as I know]. So it seems that the UN sec'y general shows public contempt for another international body purporting to represent international law. Ban seems to have indirectly referred to the Sudan situation, pleading that "Relief efforts should not become politicized," which was interpreted as a plea to al-Bashir to allow relief agencies to come back to Darfur. This is hardly the same as frankly demanding compliance with the ICC indictment. But no doubt that the Arab League let Ban know ahead of time that he must not support or even mention the ICC indictment, even by insinuation. By appearing at the League's meeting in such an abject manner, Ban lent support to the League's backing for al-Bashir's war crimes.
12-19-2010 Bat Yeor talks about the OIC which has a strong grip on the UN [ici in French]. She argues that Islam as a religion wants to impose Muslim law, shari`ah, worldwide and a universal caliphate, and that those are the goals of the OIC [in French OCI].
. . .l’islam vise à appliquer la sharîa et à établir le califat, la gouvernance islamique mondiale à la fois politique, religieuse et législative. Tel est le dessein de l’Organisation de la conférence islamique (OCI). . .
12-21-2010 Omar al-Bashir, wanted for war crimes by the ICC [international criminal court], is defended by the OIC, & by Arab League. Al-Bashir, "innocent" protege of the UN sec'y general Ban Ki-Moon, of the Arab League & the OIC, promises more shari`ah in Sudan if the South breaks away [here].
1-28-2011 How UNRWA collaborates with Hamas -- they staff UNRWA [here]

Anti-Jewish Racists Deny the Jewish Right to Live in Judea-Samaria

It seems that the Palestinian Authority is the tail that wags the Western dog, making its overly generous Western benefactors jump through the hoops of "politically correct" Judeophobia and anti-Jewish racism, particularly, but not only, on the "settlement" issue. Do Jews have the right to live in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Land of Israel? The palestinian authority denies this right. Its brothers in the Arab League delightedly pick up the relay baton to beat the Jews with, and major Western powers fall in line. Saudi Arabia shares the denial of Jewish rights with other Arab League members and has great influence over American policy as well. Saudi money also influences other Arab states. Indeed, one report claims that a proposed UN Security Council resolution against Israeli "settlements" actually originated with the Saudis, not the palestinian authority.

Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice has accepted the Arab claims and joined in the hate chorus against Israel. She does not want Jews to even build homes in Jerusalem which has had a Jewish majority since 1853, if not before, in Jerusalem, a city which became famous and significant to the world because of the Jewish history that took place there.

Condi represents the State Department which has long been anti-Israel in mood, tone, and policy, no matter who was in the White House. The racist attitude of Condi and her department as to where Jews may and may not reside goes back many years. This SD policy has no foundation in international law, which does not stop Condi and her cothinkers in the EU and UN from misrepresenting international law. One of the first to do this was the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, whose position is reported here.

Why is it racist to exclude Jews from inhabiting Judea-Samaria, or Gaza for that matter? First, because forbidding people to live in certain places because of their ethnic group or race, is racism, right off, ipso facto. Then, the forbidden people are Jews. Jews have been forbidden to inhabit many countries since their defeat at the end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. This includes the city of Jerusalem at the time of the defeat [135 CE] and Arabia after Muhammad and various countries in Europe from which Jews were driven out: England, France, Spain, parts of Germany, etc. The Russian Empire kept most Jews segregated in an area called the Pale of Settlement [Maybe the Quartet wants us to go back to live in the Pale of Settlement. That settlement would be OK]. So Condi Rice's policy should be viewed as anti-Jewish racism right off for that reason. The policy is often justified by claims that Judea-Samaria are "occupied" and that "international law" [Geneva Convention IV] forbids "transfer" of population to occupied territories. But Judea-Samaria are parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, of the Roman province of Judea. Denying the right of an exiled people to live in its homeland is unjust right off, isn't it? As to "transfer," which means compulsory migration, it does not apply since the Jews who went to live in Judea-Samaria and the Gaza Strip did so willingly, indeed eagerly. Ironically, the no "transfer" clause in Geneva IV was meant to prevent Nazi-like mass deportations, which the "international community" --including the Western allies-- had done nothing to stop in the case of the Jews during the Holocaust, albeit a few countries were helpful to the Jews at that time.

International law, properly understood without the self-interested misrepresentations made by Arabs and Western Judeophobes and UN officials, recognizes the Jewish rights to Judea-Samaria which are parts of the Jewish National Home recognized by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations, a status confirmed in the UN charter [Article 80]. The partition plan recommended by the UN General Assembly in 1947 could not withdraw that recognition since it was a mere recommendation. Moreover, the Security Council did not have authority to withdraw a right recognized in the Charter itself.

Why are the EU, UK, USA, and UN so eager to deny Jewish rights to "settle" or build homes in Judea-Samaria??? Why does Condi Rice claim that Jews living in Judea-Samaria are "obstacles to peace" or some version of this claim?? Why isn't the Arab refusal to recognize the Jewish rights of residence in those places seen as an "obstacle to peace"?? The most likely explanation is Judeophobia. If they were really interested in human welfare, peace, human rights, etc. then they would have denounced the genocide perpetrated in the Sudan many years ago. Even now, the UN spends more time berating and dehumanizing Israel than it does on, for instance, the Darfur humanitarian crisis. If it's not Judeophobia, anti-Jewish racism, then find a better answer.

Just to clear up some history, while the Jewish National Home was controlled by British mandatory forces, Jews were driven out of several localities of great historical and religious importance for Jews, Hebron, parts of the Old City of Jerusalem, etc. Now the Arabs have the hutspah to claim that the part of Jerusalem that Arab forces took over in 1947-1948 is "traditionally Arab east Jerusalem." Yet the city has had a Jewish majority at least since 1853, with the all Jews living in the Old City in that year. In modern times, forbidding Jews to live in certain places was a feature of Nazi rule and their Judenrein policy. But the British too imposed land purchase regulations on Israel in 1940 as a follow up to the 1939 White Paper on palestine. Israel was divided into zones where Jews could or could not buy real estate. In the Jerusalem zone, Jews could only buy real estate from other Jews or from non-Muslims, not from Muslim Arabs. Most of the country was off limits to Jewish land purchase. And this was during the Holocaust!!! When Transjordan [now Jordan] took over most of Judea-Samaria in 1948, it imposed a total exclusion of Jews from living anywhere in the kingdom or even visiting the kingdom or even visiting Jewish holy places [such as Hebron and the Temple Mount], although Jordan had agreed to visits to the Jewish holy places in the armistice accord with Israel. If someone can supply a better explanation than Judeophobia for the exclusion of Jews, please let me know.

More recently, the so-called Quartet, the UN, EU, Russia, and USA pressured Israel to accept the so-called Road Map "peace plan." But this is a racist, Judeophobic document, since it demands that Israel stop building homes for Jews in parts of the internationally recognized Jewish National Home. The Road Map puts conditions on the palestinian Arabs too, to be sure, but we hear no demand that the PA stop violation of the two crucial conditions: 1) to stop anti-Jewish hate agitation and propaganda in its TV, radio, press, schools, mosques, etc. 2) to disarm terrorist militias. So here we have in fact two offenses by the "international community" against the Jews and the State of Israel. One is the simple, obvious racism of campaigning against Jews living in Judea-Samaria. The other is the violation of past international commitments to Israel and the Jews, such as the Jewish National Home principle accepted in 1920 at San Remo and subsequently endorsed in several international instruments, as well as the Road Map itself that made certain demands on the Arab side, as above, which nobody seems to remember anymore, not even the Israel government under its current illegitimate prime minister who by rights should be prosecuted and sent to jail for many many crimes. Here is a position taken by the government [Israel govt takes position ].
l
Now, the UN Security Council is taking up the Jewish offense of living where the Judeophobes don't want them to live. The EU and UK state with gusto that Jews don't have rights to live in the "wrong" places. The US position is slightly more moderate. That is, Jews building homes in Judea-Samaria or living there, are disrupting a "peace process" or an "obstacle to peace" or whatever slander the State Dept and Condi can think up. Ban-Ki Moon, UN secretary general, groundlessly claims that building for Jews inhabitants in Judea-Samaria is against "international law," which is false. It is also not Moon's job to interpret international law, much less to misrepresent it. President Bush took pride in being the first president of the US to come out for a "palestinian state," that is for a people that never existed in history, in an interview with a French paper. He added that he didn't want such a state to look like "Swiss cheese," a hint that Jewish settlements could do that [Maqor Rishon, 6-13-2008] . But what about the State of Israel and Jewish rights?? Furthermore, the Security Council debate is being spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states which have a very bad record on human rights, as everyone knows. It is quite relevant that both Jordan and Saudi Arabia have laws forbidding Jews to live in those countries. And now they want to enforce such exclusion in the Jews' own country!!!

- - - - - -
Coming: Jewish victims of the Armenian gencide, Jerusalem archeology, Hebron, Land of Israel, peace follies, propaganda, etc.