Nabih Berri addressed Hezbollah‘s escalated actions against Israel, stating that these clashes significantly impact global peacemaking efforts.
Regarding the intensified national discussions about implementing Resolution 1559, he asserted that Resolution 1701 alone remains pertinent; Resolution 1559 is now obsolete.
Berri further stated that he and Prime Minister Najib Mikati are working diligently towards a ceasefire. He acknowledged the current fluctuations in tension, describing the overall situation as unstable.
- It reinforces its demand for complete adherence to Lebanon’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political freedom, solely under the Lebanese government’s authority nationwide.
- It mandates the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon.
- It urges the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese militias.
- It supports the expansion of the Lebanese government’s control over all Lebanese territories.
- It declares its support for a free and fair electoral process in upcoming presidential elections, conducted according to the Lebanese Constitution without external interference.
- It calls upon all parties to fully cooperate with the Security Council to ensure complete implementation of this and all relevant resolutions for Lebanon’s restoration of territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence.
- It directs the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council within thirty days on the parties’ implementation of this resolution and commits to continued involvement in the matter.
In contrast, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, unanimously approved on August 11, 2006, aimed to resolve the ongoing Lebanese-Israeli conflict. The Lebanese government endorsed the resolution on August 12, 2006.
The resolution dictates:
- A complete cessation of hostilities (paragraph 1).
- A simultaneous Israeli withdrawal of all forces from Lebanon and the deployment of Lebanese troops and UNIFIL throughout the south (paragraph 2).
- A long-term solution dependent on (paragraph 8).
- The disarmament of all armed groups within Lebanon.
- No armed forces, except UNIFIL and Lebanese forces (excluding Hezbollah and Israeli forces), south of the Litani River.
- No foreign troops in Lebanon without government approval.
- The provision of all maps of Lebanese landmines held by Israel to the United Nations.
Furthermore, the resolution confirms:
- The importance of the Lebanese government’s complete authority over Lebanon (paragraph 3).
- The urgent need to address the#Berri #Americans #expressing #backing #resolution #Lebanon #much #discussion #action
Berri’s Rejection of UN Resolution 1559: A Strategic Play or a Reckless Gamble?
The Lebanese political arena, already unstable, has experienced another seismic shift. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s recent pronouncements, downplaying the significance of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 while emphasizing escalating Israeli tensions, unveil a complex game plan – potentially a clever political tactic or a perilous escalation of an already precarious situation.
Berri’s dismissal of Resolution 1559 as insignificant is audacious. Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, demanded the disarmament of Lebanese militias, including Hezbollah, and the withdrawal of all foreign troops. Berri’s rejection, given his close Hezbollah ties, signifies a repudiation of a core tenet of international consensus on Lebanon’s stability. This stance, amidst heightened Hezbollah-Israel clashes, is deeply troubling.
His justification – prioritizing Resolution 1701 (focused on ending the 2006 Lebanon War) – lacks substance. While 1701 addressed immediate conflict cessation, it didn’t negate Resolution 1559’s underlying concerns. By favoring short-term truces over long-term structural reform, Berri risks perpetuating Lebanon’s cycle of violence and instability.
This situation highlights inherent contradictions in Lebanon’s political system. Berri’s assertions of close cooperation with Prime Minister Mikati for a truce sharply contrast with his disregard for a crucial UN resolution aiming for lasting peace. This inconsistency points to a preference for short-term political gains over long-term national stability – a potentially devastating strategy.
The arguments made, seemingly supporting Lebanese sovereignty, territorial wholeness, and free elections, seem insincere considering Berri’s dismissal of Resolution 1559. These aspirations ring hollow if the issue of powerful non-state actors like Hezbollah operating outside government control remains unaddressed.
Berri might be trying to bolster Hezbollah’s influence by using current Israeli tensions. By framing the situation as a regional conflict requiring immediate de-escalation through talks instead of tackling Hezbollah’s armament, he may be deflecting international pressure. However, this tactic is high-risk. It risks alienating international partners, potentially hindering vital aid for Lebanon.
Berri’s declaration marks a crucial moment in Lebanon’s quest for stability. His rejection of Resolution 1559, alongside peace claims, showcases a troubling disconnect between words and actions. Whether this is a shrewd but risky political move or a dangerous miscalculation that further destabilizes Lebanon remains unclear. The international community needs to carefully assess its response, as inaction could severely harm Lebanon and the wider region.
<iframe allow="autoplay" width="580" height="380" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C_PN3rSb2Zo" frameborder=" rnrnBerri’s Rejection of UN Resolution 1559: A Strategic Play or a Reckless Gamble?
The Lebanese political landscape, already a volatile mix of sectarian tensions and international pressures, has been further destabilized by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri’s recent pronouncements. His dismissal of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 as obsolete, while simultaneously stressing the urgency of Resolution 1701 amidst escalating Hezbollah-Israel clashes, presents a perplexing scenario—a calculated political maneuver or a dangerous escalation?
Berri’s audacious claim that Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004 to disarm Lebanese militias (including Hezbollah) and demand the withdrawal of foreign forces, is irrelevant is alarming. This statement, particularly given his close ties to Hezbollah, represents a direct challenge to a long-standing pillar of international efforts to stabilize Lebanon. The timing, coinciding with increased cross-border tensions, only exacerbates concerns.
His argument for prioritizing Resolution 1701, focusing on the 2006 war’s cessation, rings hollow. While 1701 provided an immediate ceasefire, it didn’t supersede the fundamental concerns addressed in Resolution 1559. Berri’s apparent prioritization of short-term ceasefires over the long-term structural reforms demanded by Resolution 1559 suggests a willingness to perpetuate Lebanon’s cycle of violence – a dangerous gamble that ignores the root causes of instability.
The inherent contradictions within Berri’s statements further underscore the fragility of Lebanon’s political system. His claim of working with Prime Minister Mikati towards a ceasefire directly clashes with his dismissal of a resolution crucial for lasting peace. This apparent double-dealing reveals a system where short-term political gain potentially outweighs the pursuit of lasting stability.
The international community, particularly the UN, faces a critical juncture. Ignoring Berri’s blatant disregard for Resolution 1559 will embolden Hezbollah and further destabilize the region. A robust response, potentially involving targeted sanctions or diplomatic pressure, is needed to reassert the importance of disarmament and the withdrawal of foreign forces—core tenets of lasting peace in Lebanon. Failing to do so risks normalizing the erosion of international norms and setting a dangerous precedent for future conflicts. Berri’s actions might be a strategic gambit, but the potential consequences could be catastrophic for Lebanon and the region. The international community must act decisively to prevent this reckless gamble from escalating into a full-blown crisis.
The Jerusalem Orthodox Church issued a statement, plainly stating that this attack unequivocally showcases Israel’s unjustified resolve to obliterate civilian infrastructure, social service hubs, and shelters safeguarding civilians within the besieged territory.
An AFP correspondent witnessed smoke plumes rising from the remnants of an Orthodox cultural center and school in Gaza.
The Israeli defense forces have yet to provide a statement regarding the assault.
Following the Hamas militants’ October 7th incursion into Israeli territory—resulting in the deaths of 1,400 individuals, according to Israeli authorities—Israel initiated a large-scale aerial bombardment of the enclave.
The Gaza Strip‘s Ministry of Health, under Hamas administration, reported over 8,500 Palestinian fatalities in the ongoing conflict with Israel, based on the most recent figures.
A local resident near the Orthodox cultural center informed AFP that he awoke to the sounds of detonations.
“Missiles targeted this church building; what was the purpose?” Hassan Abu Mersa questioned, expressing bewilderment at the unfolding events.
The Patriarchate declared that nineteen places of worship, comprising churches and mosques, have been struck by Israeli airstrikes since October 7th.
On October 20th, several individuals lost their lives while seeking refuge within the Church of Saint Porphyry’s grounds—the oldest functioning church in the Gaza Strip—during an Israeli shelling.
window.fbAsyncInit = function() {
FB.init({
appId: ‘117218911630016’,
version: ‘v2.10’,
status: true,
cookie: false,
xfbml: true
});
};
(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) {
return;
}
js = d.createElement(s);
js.id = id;
js.src = “https://connect.facebook.net/lt_LT/sdk.js”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
#Patriarchate #Jerusalem #condemns #Israeli #bombing #central #Gaza
Gaza Attack: A Church’s Accusation and the Smoke Rising Over Shattered Lives
The latest reports from Gaza paint a grim picture, one further complicated by the strong condemnation issued by the Jerusalem Orthodox Church. The Church’s statement pulls no punches, directly accusing Israel of a deliberate and unjustified attack targeting civilian infrastructure. This isn’t simply rhetoric; it’s a grave accusation leveled by a significant religious authority with deep roots in the region, carrying considerable weight in the ongoing narrative.
The statement points to the destruction of civilian shelters, social service hubs, and – significantly – an Orthodox cultural center and school. An AFP correspondent’s eyewitness account of smoke billowing from the ruins only underscores the severity of the devastation. The destruction of a school and a cultural center isn’t collateral damage; it’s a targeted blow aimed at the heart of the community, its education, and its cultural heritage.
While details remain scarce, the Church’s explicit condemnation forces us to consider several critical points. Firstly, the sheer act of accusing Israel of such a blatant disregard for civilian life demands a thorough and independent investigation. The international community, particularly those with a vested interest in maintaining regional stability, must demand transparency and access to the affected areas to fully ascertain the facts. Silence in the face of such accusations only serves to legitimize potential war crimes.
Secondly, the targeting of cultural and educational institutions raises serious concerns about potential violations of international humanitarian law. These institutions are expressly protected under the Geneva Conventions, designed to minimize suffering during armed conflict. Their deliberate destruction constitutes a profound breach of these agreements and should be treated as such.
the rising smoke is more than just a visual representation of destruction; it’s a symbol of the human cost of this conflict. Behind the imagery of ravaged buildings are displaced families, shattered lives, and the traumatic loss of cultural heritage. The Church’s statement, while highly critical, serves as a vital reminder to prioritize the lives and well-being of civilians caught in the crossfire, regardless of the political complexities surrounding the conflict.
The international community must act decisively to ensure accountability and prevent further tragedies. A swift and impartial investigation, combined with robust pressure for adherence to international humanitarian law, is imperative to prevent this conflict from spiraling further into irreparable damage. The smoke rising from Gaza demands more than just observation; it demands decisive action.
Gaza Attack: A Church’s Accusation and the Smoke Rising Over Shattered Lives
The horrifying scenes emerging from Gaza are further intensified by the Jerusalem Orthodox Church’s damning condemnation of Israeli actions. The Church’s statement, devoid of equivocation, accuses Israel of a deliberate campaign to obliterate civilian infrastructure, including shelters and vital social services. This isn’t mere commentary; it’s a weighty accusation from a deeply rooted religious authority, demanding immediate attention.
The destruction of an Orthodox cultural center and school, witnessed firsthand by an AFP correspondent, paints a stark picture of devastation. The images of smoke rising from the ruins are a chilling reminder of the human cost of this conflict. Targeting educational institutions and cultural centers isn’t collateral damage; it’s a calculated act designed to cripple a community’s future and erase its identity. This resonates deeply with Hassan Abu Mersa’s poignant question: “Missiles targeted this church building; what was the purpose?” His bewilderment echoes the global outrage.
The Patriarchate’s claim that nineteen places of worship have been struck since October 7th further underscores the gravity of the situation. The reported deaths of individuals seeking refuge within the Church of Saint Porphyry‘s grounds, the oldest functioning church in Gaza, is particularly disturbing. These aren’t isolated incidents; they suggest a pattern of attacks targeting civilian spaces, including religious sites offering sanctuary.
The Israeli Defense Forces’ silence only exacerbates the situation. The absence of a statement, coupled with the Church’s forceful condemnation and the eyewitness accounts, necessitates a transparent and independent investigation into these allegations. The international community must demand accountability and exert pressure to ensure such atrocities cease. The staggering death tolls reported by both Israeli and Palestinian authorities highlight the urgent need for a ceasefire and a focus on protecting innocent lives. The world cannot stand idly by while cultural heritage is destroyed and places of worship are turned into targets. This conflict demands a thorough examination, moving beyond simplistic narratives and focusing on the undeniable suffering of the civilian population. The silence from Israel regarding the specific allegations of targeting civilian infrastructure, including religious sites, is especially concerning and further demands a robust response from international bodies to ensure accountability and protect civilians.
The officials indicated to Axios that “the Biden administration accepts the idea that Israel will soon launch a major attack on Iran, but it fears that strikes on certain targets will lead to a significant escalation of the regional war.”
A senior Israeli official said current plans were still somewhat more aggressive than the White House would like.
But a US official said we were “moving in the right direction” after Biden and Netanyahu’s call on Wednesday evening, and another US official said the White House became somewhat less nervous about Israel’s plans after the call.
The Israeli official also said that “the gaps between the United States and Israel regarding the nature and scope of the attack have narrowed.”
American officials also noted that “Biden and Netanyahu’s call was the culmination of about two weeks of consultations between the US administration and the Israeli government since Iran launched about 180 missiles at Israel in an attack that was largely thwarted.”
The officials added, “A separate call took place on Wednesday between National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer before the call between Biden and Netanyahu.”
Sullivan and Dermer’s call was the most detailed discussion to date between the United States and Israel regarding Israel’s plans to respond to Iran.
Senior American and Israeli officials said that Biden and Netanyahu emphasized some of the understandings reached by Sullivan and Dermer in their call.
On Thursday evening, the Israeli security cabinet met to receive a briefing on plans to attack Iran and understandings with the Biden administration, according to Israeli officials, and the mini-security cabinet is likely to authorize Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant to determine the timing of the anticipated attack.
American and Israeli officials said that working-level consultations between the United States and Israel regarding the response to Iran continued on Thursday and will continue in the coming days.
Gallant will likely travel to Washington early next week to continue discussions with Sullivan and US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
Source: Axios
#Washington #Israel #attack #Iran #fear #escalation #regional #war
Analysis: The Looming Israeli-Iran Conflict and the US’s Cautious Approval
Recent reports suggest that Israel is planning a major attack on Iran, with the Biden administration cautiously accepting the idea but expressing concerns about the potential escalation of the regional war. According to Axios, senior Israeli officials have revealed that their plans are still more aggressive than the White House would like, highlighting a delicate balancing act between supporting Israel’s security concerns and avoiding a broader conflict.
The tensions between Israel and Iran have been simmering for years, with recent incidents such as Iran’s ballistic missile attack on Israel last week [[1]] only increasing the likelihood of military action. The US has been actively helping to defend Israel, with US ships and planes intercepting Iranian missiles and drones bound for Israel [[2]]. Furthermore, as recently reported by the US Department of Defense, US assets in the Mediterranean have helped to defend Israel against Iranian missile attacks [[3]].
Despite this cooperation, the Biden administration is visibly anxious about the potential consequences of Israel’s planned attack on Iran. A US official was quoted as saying that the administration is “moving in the right direction” after a call between President Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but this cautious optimism is likely tempered by the knowledge that Israel’s aggressive plans may not align with the US’s preferred approach.
A significant concern for the US is the potential for Iranian retaliation against Israeli targets, which could draw in other regional players and escalate the conflict. The Biden administration’s nightmare scenario is likely one in which Israel’s attack on Iran sparks a wider war, drawing in countries like Lebanon, Syria, and possibly even Russia.
Given these circumstances, it is understandable that the US is urging caution on Israel, even as it acknowledges the legitimacy of Israel’s security concerns. However, for now, it appears that Israel is intent on pursuing its plans, potentially with or without explicit US approval.
the situation is precarious and complex, with multiple actors and interests at play. While the US is unlikely to publicly oppose an Israeli attack on Iran, it is evident that the Biden administration is working to limit the scope and intensity of the conflict, and to prevent a wider regional war.
As the situation continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the coming days and weeks will be a critical test of diplomatic skill and strategic thinking for all parties involved.
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has threatened Iran with a surprise attack and said that Iran will not even know what happened to him.
The Israeli defense minister said in a statement issued on Wednesday that Israel’s attack will not be like the Iranian attack, Israel’s attack will be strong, clear and sudden.
The American journalist exposed the hypocrisy of his country
After calling Iran’s October 1 missile attack a failure, Gallant said, ‘Anyone who attacks us is going to get hurt and pay the price. Our attack will be deadly, precise and above all surprising, they will not understand what happened and how it happened, they will see the results’.
{try{this.style.height=this.contentWindow.document.body.scrollHeight+’px’;}catch{}}, 100)” width=”100%” frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no” style=”height:250px;position:relative” src=” sandbox=”allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-popups allow-modals allow-forms”>
It should be noted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Joe Biden had a telephone conversation on the response to the Iranian missile attack.
Growing tension with Israel, Iran’s strong warning to the Gulf countries
Netanyahu has promised that Iran will pay for its missile attack, while Tehran has said that any retaliation would be met with mass destruction. After which there is a fear of a wide war in the oil-producing region that may involve the United States as well.
{try{this.style.height=this.contentWindow.document.body.scrollHeight+’px’;}catch{}}, 100)” width=”100%” frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no” style=”height:250px;position:relative” src=” sandbox=”allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-popups allow-modals allow-forms”>
Iran fired dozens of missiles at Israel on October 1, escalating tensions between the two countries. Israel is debating how to respond to an Iranian attack. Biden has said he would not support a retaliatory attack on sites related to Tehran’s nuclear program.
#Israeli #Defense #Minister #threatens #Iran #surprise #attack #World
Analysis: Israel’s Threats to Iran and the Implications of a Potential Conflict
The comments made by Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, where he threatens Iran with a surprise attack, are a stark reminder of the escalating tensions between the two nations. According to recent statements, Gallant declared that Israel’s attack would be “deadly, precise and above all surprising” [[3]], emphasizing the severity of the potential retaliation.
Gallant’s comments are significant, especially given the recent postponement of his trip to Washington D.C., where he was scheduled to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Austin [[1]]. This development raises questions about the state of Israel’s coordination with its key ally, the United States. It is crucial to note that Israel has not briefed U.S. military officials on its plans for retaliation against Iran [[1]].
Gallant, a seasoned military veteran, having joined the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in 1974 and serving in the elite “Shayetet 13” commando unit [[2]], understands the gravity of such threats. His words should not be taken lightly, as they carry the weight of Israel’s military capabilities and experience.
The threat of a surprise attack is particularly concerning, as it could lead to an unpredictable and potentially devastating conflict. Gallant’s statement that Iran will not even know what happened to it [[3]]underscores the stealth and precision that Israel might employ in its retaliation.
However, the statement also highlights the hypocritical nature of the narrative surrounding the conflict. While Israel condemns Iran’s October 1 missile attack as a failure, it simultaneously threatens a surprise attack, essentially mirroring the tactics it condemns [[3]]. This perceived double standard is further complicated by the fact that Israel has not been forthcoming about its plans for retaliation with its key ally, the United States [[1]].
the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, fueled by Gallant’s comments, raise concerns about the potential for a wider conflict. The fact that Israel has not briefed U.S. military officials on its plans for retaliation only adds to the uncertainty. As the situation continues to unfold, it is crucial to monitor the developments closely and consider the implications of a potential conflict between Israel and Iran.
References:
[1] NBC News – Israel has not briefed U.S. military officials on its plans for retaliation against Iran – https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/israel-not-briefed-us-military-officials-plans-retaliation-iran-rcna174443
[2] Israel Ministry of Defense – Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant – https://english.mod.gov.il/MinisterofDefense/Pages/Minister-of-Defense.aspx
[3] Politico – An attack on Iran would be ‘lethal’ and ‘surprising,’ Israel’s defense minister says – https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/09/israel-warns-iran-yoav-gallant-00183190