Shalom all,

The number of IDF members killed in action since the beginning of the ground offensive is now up to 139.

As we draw close to the end of the 78th day of the war, Israel focuses on three main areas that need to be resolved, two of which will be discussed here: the Hezbollah terrorist organization in Lebanon, the Hamas terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip and the Yemenite Houthis terrorists in the area of the Red Sea. The fighting in Gaza continues, with considerable success against Hamas forces, including the elimination of “a senior Hamas official responsible for arms trade, production and procurement for the terror organization’s military wing”. But, there are questions and possible developments regarding the Hezbollah.

A senior official in the Hezbollah was asked whether the implementation of a second, major front along the northern border of Israel would be productive in bringing about an end to the Gaza War. He replied, “We asked our brothers in Gaza what could we do? If to initiate an all-out war in Lebanon. Would that stop the war in Gaza or not?…Their response was no, it would not stop it, the war in Gaza will not end, only with Israel’s victory inside Gaza.” (my emphasis)  The same report by The Jerusalem Post quotes the reply of Hamas to be that “the fighting in Gaza will not cease. Only with a victory over Israel within Gaza.“ (my emphasis) 

If the response of Hamas, according to The Times of Israel was honest (which is always doubtful) that the war will end only with an Israeli victory, it would reveal much about the present mindset of the Gaza-based terrorist organization. From a practical point of view, Hamas cannot succeed militarily against Israel. But, it does hold a critical “playing card”, namely, the hostages. From prior reports, it became clear that Hamas understands that once it releases the hostages, there would be nothing to hold back the IDF from pursuing its original goal of eliminating the Hamas terrorists and its infrastructure. 

Hence, the only real options at present are three-fold: fight to the death; surrender or try to hold out for a political solution that will allow for the return of the hostages, while keeping the leadership of Hamas alive to fight another day. The first option is sheer foolishness on the part of Hamas. The second option, surrender, is unrealistic, as “losing face” in the region of the Middle East is worse that being killed in battle. That leaves the third option for Hamas, of trying to “hang in there”, until enough pressure is placed on Israel that the latter would agree to almost any renewed hostage-release deal as well as the terms that would be dictated by Hamas. It needs to be remembered that in this area of the world, if you do not lose decisively, you are deemed to have won. This bring us to Hamas’s reply quoted in The Jerusalem Post article, namely, that the war will only end after a victory over Israel within Gaza. As noted above, militarily, and by God’s grace, that is not going to happen.

So, is there a possibility of avoiding an all-out second front in the north? Beirut (Lebanon’s capital) says “yes”, but there are conditions. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 , which ended the Second Lebanon War in 2006, and which both sides agreed to within two days of its passage, provides, in part, as follows:
“The Security Council…Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah’s attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons…

“1.  Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;…

“8.  Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long- term solution based on the following principles and elements:

– full respect for the Blue Line (a temporary line of withdrawal from Lebanon by Israeli troops, set by the U.N. in 2000)  by both parties;

– security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;…

–  no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government;…

“15.  Decides further that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft:

(a) The sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories.”

From the above Resolution, it is clear that Hezbollah initiated attacks against Israel and that there was to be a demilitarized zone from the Blue Line all the way north to the Litani River in Lebanon. But, more importantly, there was to be an arms embargo on Lebanon. With this in mind, and with the realization that the Hezbollah controls Lebanon in much the same way that Hamas controlled the Gaza Strip, we can understand that promises by the Hezbollah are meaningless. It immediately and consistently violated the terms of Resolution 1701, entered the demilitarized zone and has significantly increased its weapons of war, which poses a serious threat to Israel.

And so we return to the possibility of “implementing” an existing U.N. Resolution that would help to end the Hezbollah’s cross-border attacks on Israel. Lebanon Prime Minister, Najib Mikati,  expressed a “readiness” to act according to international resolutions “on condition the Israeli side does the same, and withdraws — according to the international laws and resolutions — from occupied territory.” The territory in question is actually “disputed”, but controlled by Israel, following Israel’s without from the south of Lebanon in 2000. 

While Mikati’s comments were made about two months ago, little has been done to more the matter forward. Jerusalem is open to resolving the present conflict with Beirut, but said that if a deal is not reached if a deal is not reached under which Hezbollah would be moved north of the Litani River (around 30 km (20 miles) from the border, an all-out war would be possible. Israel’s Foreign Minister, Eli Cohen, said this past week that Hezbollah can be moved northward, either by diplomacy or by force. Maybe for once, diplomacy will work. Lebanon is facing a severe economic crisis and its leadership realizes that the last thing it needs now is an all-out war with Israel. Israel also wants to avoid an active second front and return the displaced residents to the communities in the north. Both sides will benefit from a cessation of cross-border hostilities. The main question is whether Hezbollah’s puppeteer, Iran, will pull its strings towards war.

In the meantime, the U.S. is making efforts to mediate between the two countries. And while pursuing such efforts, “U.S. officials have made it clear to their counterparts in Lebanon and Israel that peace cannot be restored to the northern border before the conflict in Gaza ends. The officials said that Hezbollah and other militias in Lebanon are not expected to cease firing at Israel as long as the war in Gaza continues.”

The UN approves resolution requiring additional aid deliveries to Gaza. – The U.N. Security Council adopted 2720 (2023) a watered-down resolution yesterday (Friday), which included the following:

“The Security Council…“2. Reaffirms the obligations of the parties to the conflict under international humanitarian law regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance, demands that they allow, facilitate and enable the immediate, safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance at scale directly to the Palestinian civilian population through the Gaza Strip, and in this regard calls for urgent steps to immediately allow safe, unhindered, and expanded humanitarian access and to create the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities.”

In its Preamble to the Resolution, the Security Council repeated its warped understanding of the issues between Israel and its neighbors, by “Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967, and reiterating the vision of the two-State solution, with the Gaza Strip as part of the Palestinian State.” In paragraph 12 of the Resolution, the S.C. reiterated “its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority.” (Underlined emphasis mine)

At first, I wondered how the U.S. could refrain from voting, when the resolution contained so many historically erroneous language. Then I remembered that the “two-state solution” is part of the O-Biden Administration’s planned goal for the region “the day after” the war ends. This international body has an agenda and it is definitely not favorable, or even impartial, towards Israel. Its representatives should take time out from their idyllic sand-castles in fantasy land and spend a month living in Judea and Samaria (which it refers to as the West Bank). I would have suggested that they spend that period of time in the Gaza Strip, but it appears that the Strip is presently undergoing renovations. If they don’t act on that suggestion, then they should consider speaking to hostages who has been released, who once thought that Hamas possessed a trace of humanity, but whose thinking is now totally opposite. As one mother and daughter explained it: “I don’t want anyone to think we had it good there, that they’re good there, that we saw humanity there…We believed that there are no bad people – only people who have it bad. But there are bad people…We will never forgive and we will never show any kind of empathy towards these people…If we previously believed that there was a chance for peace, we’ve lost all faith in these people, especially after we were there and among the population.“  Enough said!

As for supplying more humanitarian aid to Gaza, the U.N. continues to live in “lalaland”.

The Dry Bones Blog, 22 December, 2023

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.
Marvin