Additional Resources
Top Commentators:
- Elliott Abrams
- Fouad Ajami
- Shlomo Avineri
- Benny Avni
- Alan Dershowitz
- Jackson Diehl
- Dore Gold
- Daniel Gordis
- Tom Gross
- Jonathan Halevy
- David Ignatius
- Pinchas Inbari
- Jeff Jacoby
- Efraim Karsh
- Mordechai Kedar
- Charles Krauthammer
- Emily Landau
- David Makovsky
- Aaron David Miller
- Benny Morris
- Jacques Neriah
- Marty Peretz
- Melanie Phillips
- Daniel Pipes
- Harold Rhode
- Gary Rosenblatt
- Jennifer Rubin
- David Schenkar
- Shimon Shapira
- Jonathan Spyer
- Gerald Steinberg
- Bret Stephens
- Amir Taheri
- Josh Teitelbaum
- Khaled Abu Toameh
- Jonathan Tobin
- Michael Totten
- Michael Young
- Mort Zuckerman
Think Tanks:
- American Enterprise Institute
- Brookings Institution
- Center for Security Policy
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Heritage Foundation
- Hudson Institute
- Institute for Contemporary Affairs
- Institute for Counter-Terrorism
- Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
- Institute for National Security Studies
- Institute for Science and Intl. Security
- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
- Investigative Project
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
- RAND Corporation
- Saban Center for Middle East Policy
- Shalem Center
- Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Media:
- CAMERA
- Daily Alert
- Jewish Political Studies Review
- MEMRI
- NGO Monitor
- Palestinian Media Watch
- The Israel Project
- YouTube
Government:
Back
(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Assaf Orion - One year ago, Hizbullah started what has morphed into the third Lebanon war with Israel, exposing the international failure to implement security arrangements mandated after their second war in 2006. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 ably diagnosed the main reasons for the outbreak of the second Lebanon war: Hizbullah's possession of military weapons outside the government's control, and its deployment of forces in southern Lebanon along the border with Israel. 1701 wisely called on Beirut to extend its sovereignty via the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), supported by UNIFIL, and to establish a zone south of the Litani River that was free of any nongovernmental armed forces. Yet none of these requirements was fulfilled. Disarmament of militias was never seriously addressed. Instead, Lebanese officials essentially endorsed Hizbullah's right to bear arms. The Lebanese government and LAF actively colluded with Hizbullah in violating 1701, systematically obstructing UNIFIL access to Hizbullah military sites including cross-border tunnels, firing ranges, and missile launch sites. To end the current Lebanon war and prevent the outbreak of a fourth one, the international community must provide better security arrangements, especially an effective implementation mechanism that helps the Lebanese government establish a monopoly on arms within its borders. Specifically, future security arrangements must ensure that Lebanese territory is no longer used to threaten Israel - whether by Hizbullah, other Iranian proxies, Palestinian groups, or jihadists. The goal is to safeguard both Israel and Lebanon's security and sovereignty. The core of Lebanon's future security architecture should begin with its government assuming sovereign responsibility over its territory. Given Beirut's long-running weakness, however, additional layers are necessary. Realistically, the prospects for a significantly stronger Security Council resolution are slim. Hence, a non-UN path may be required. The U.S., Israel, and like-minded countries could create their own mechanism independent of the UN to compensate for the shortfalls in the current arrangement, on issues ranging from oversight to monitoring to coercive sanctions. Israel could provide intelligence to focus their efforts - and even military enforcement should all else fail. To set all this in motion, aid to Lebanon's economy and reconstruction, as well as arms, funds, and training support to the LAF, must be conditioned on meeting clear benchmarks. Any Lebanese actors closely colluding with Hizbullah should be designated as terrorist elements and dealt with accordingly. The writer, an International Fellow with the Washington Institute, is former head of the Israel Defense Forces Strategic Planning Division.2024-11-05 00:00:00Full Article
Future Security Arrangements Must Ensure that Lebanese Territory Is No Longer Used to Threaten Israel
(Washington Institute for Near East Policy) Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Assaf Orion - One year ago, Hizbullah started what has morphed into the third Lebanon war with Israel, exposing the international failure to implement security arrangements mandated after their second war in 2006. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 ably diagnosed the main reasons for the outbreak of the second Lebanon war: Hizbullah's possession of military weapons outside the government's control, and its deployment of forces in southern Lebanon along the border with Israel. 1701 wisely called on Beirut to extend its sovereignty via the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), supported by UNIFIL, and to establish a zone south of the Litani River that was free of any nongovernmental armed forces. Yet none of these requirements was fulfilled. Disarmament of militias was never seriously addressed. Instead, Lebanese officials essentially endorsed Hizbullah's right to bear arms. The Lebanese government and LAF actively colluded with Hizbullah in violating 1701, systematically obstructing UNIFIL access to Hizbullah military sites including cross-border tunnels, firing ranges, and missile launch sites. To end the current Lebanon war and prevent the outbreak of a fourth one, the international community must provide better security arrangements, especially an effective implementation mechanism that helps the Lebanese government establish a monopoly on arms within its borders. Specifically, future security arrangements must ensure that Lebanese territory is no longer used to threaten Israel - whether by Hizbullah, other Iranian proxies, Palestinian groups, or jihadists. The goal is to safeguard both Israel and Lebanon's security and sovereignty. The core of Lebanon's future security architecture should begin with its government assuming sovereign responsibility over its territory. Given Beirut's long-running weakness, however, additional layers are necessary. Realistically, the prospects for a significantly stronger Security Council resolution are slim. Hence, a non-UN path may be required. The U.S., Israel, and like-minded countries could create their own mechanism independent of the UN to compensate for the shortfalls in the current arrangement, on issues ranging from oversight to monitoring to coercive sanctions. Israel could provide intelligence to focus their efforts - and even military enforcement should all else fail. To set all this in motion, aid to Lebanon's economy and reconstruction, as well as arms, funds, and training support to the LAF, must be conditioned on meeting clear benchmarks. Any Lebanese actors closely colluding with Hizbullah should be designated as terrorist elements and dealt with accordingly. The writer, an International Fellow with the Washington Institute, is former head of the Israel Defense Forces Strategic Planning Division.2024-11-05 00:00:00Full Article
Search Daily Alert
Search:
|