Please forward this text or send the link to a friend.

Subscribe to our free newsletter at   
Receive articles from Emperorís Clothes Website

Emperorís Clothes 


The UN Ceasefire and Israel's Policy of Disaster
 by Jared Israel

[21 August 2006]


On 13 August the Israeli cabinet approved the UN plan for a ceasefire and multinational force in Lebanon, sponsored by the US and France. This plan:

* Grants Hezbollah the same legitimacy as Israel;

* Calls for a 15,000-strong UN force that could render future Israeli military action against Hezbollah an international casus belli;

* Legitmizes the Hezbollah-Lebanese policy of terror regarding the phony Shebaa Farms dispute; [1]

* Lets Iran off scot-free after it sponsored Hezbollah's attacks, including admittedly providing Hezbollah with Zelzal-21 missiles; [2]

* And is predicated on the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese military being trained to protect Israel, with the training carried out by Germany, which has itself played a treacherous role. [3]

The acceptance of this plan caps a policy of disaster that:

a) has seen Prime Minister Ehud Olmert woo intervention by foreign governments
[4] and the UN, which have consistently encouraged Hezbollah's Lebanon-backed anti-Israel terror;

b) has involved a military offensive relying primarily on air power, thus preventing the IDF from destroying Hezbollah, which can only be accomplished with massive ground forces. At the same time, the focus on air power has given Hezbollah a crucial propaganda advantage. (As we shall see, Olmert's approach is an expression of the strategy that has governed Israel's response to Muslim terror for a decade and a half, an approach I call 'concede-punish-retreat.')

Wars cannot be won from the air. To win, ground forces are needed to control terrain and defeat the enemy military. The partial exception is an air war of terror. Israel has - most fortunately - conducted the opposite kind of air war, destroying enemy weapons and facilities while trying to protect civilians (e.g., Israel drops leaflets to warn civilians away from targeted areas, even though this alerts Hezbollah).

Conducted in this principled manner, wars cannot be won from the air.

This is especially true when fighting terrorist forces; more so when the terrorists don't care about civilian casualties; and even more so when they are supplied by very wealthy Iran.

Thus, when the Israeli government decided, after six years of Hezbollah's Lebanon-backed attacks - including terrorist incursions
[6], the firing of antiaircraft guns at Israeli towns, the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and the arming of Palestinian Arab terrorists [7] - to counter attack, the Israeli air assault needed to be followed by a massive ground incursion to crush Hezbollah's forces, seize its weapons, and arrest its military-political leadership.

This approach has been staunchly resisted by the Olmert government, which even now has only some 30,000 troops in southern Lebanon. What is needed is a force ten times that size.

As I have documented, the US State Department called the 2005 Lebanese elections a victory for democracy.
[8] In fact, Lebanese elections have been conducted under the merciless eye of Islamist Hezbollah, which has, we are told, 6,000 armed men supported by a disciplined, Nazi-like political/media apparatus. [9]

 With Israel having withdrawn from Lebanon and doing nothing to protect Lebanese who oppose Hezbollah, with Hezbollah armed, trained and financed by Iran and holding monster rallies with thousands of chanting fanatics - in such an atmosphere, Lebanese opposed to Hezbollah's Iranian Islamism are intimidated, and those without clear ideas may express unfelt support. But a huge Israeli ground force would shatter Hezbollah's local and international image of invincibility. Anti- Hezbollah Lebanese would be emboldened, coming forward to identify Hezbollah's local enforcers. The IDF could arrest them and install de-Nazified local governments in liberated areas.

However, relying on air power, the opposite occurs. Hezbollah has in effect politically directed the Israeli air war. Knowing Israel will attack any area from which rockets are fired, Hezbollah can launch and hide rocket launchers in densely populated areas and force civilians to "take refuge" in buildings near launchers or kill civilians themselves, then place them in areas from which rockets have been fired, knowing that Israel will counter attack. To the extent that Hezbollah controls the ground, they can bring in collaborating "news" people to broadcast this staged morality play to the world.

Israel's policy of warning civilians to leave areas from which Hezbollah is attacking is honorable, but Israel can then alternately be blamed for forcing thousands of Lebanese from their homes.

The reliance of the Israeli government of Ehud Olmert on air power fits Olmert's stated goal, which has been not to destroy Hezbollah, but to get a UN-brokered cease fire with a multinational force in southern Lebanon. This, supposedly to keep Hezbollah's rockets away from Israel, while the Lebanese are trained to protect the border. Expecting the UN and the Lebanese government to protect Israel from Hezbollah is like expecting wolves to guard hens from foxes.

A case in point is the Shebaa Farms dispute, regarding which the UN has consistently acknowledged that Israel did everything the UN asked, while Lebanon openly flaunted the UN. Nevertheless the UN has, for six years, facilitated Lebanese recalcitrance and attacks on Israel.

Now, not only does Olmert advocate this UN-controlled solution, but he calls for Lebanon to police the border from which it has supported attacks on Israel. And who is to train these suddenly transfigured Lebanese security forces? The same Germany that, after the October 7, 2000 kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers, boosted Hezbollah by publicly endorsing its call for "mediation".

In late October 2000, German Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder toured the Middle East, endorsing the pro-Hezbollah government in Beirut, praising Syria, and pressuring then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak to allow "mediation." When, under German pressure, Israel traded 429 Palestinian and Lebanese terrorists for the bodies of the three kidnapped soldiers - murdered by Hezbollah - and a single living Israeli, the head of German intelligence accompanied the Lebanese terrorists to Beirut and publicly congratulated Hezbollah for their role in the so-called "prisoner exchange," calling it a ďhumanitarian operation."

Responding to a six year war of terror by Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, with air attacks and a relatively small ground force, projecting as his goal not victory but a ceasefire to be guaranteed by hostile forces, Olmert has acted in accord with Israel's post-Oslo strategy: concede-punish-retreat. Thus, Israel withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon in May 2000. Hezbollah and Lebanon responded by: a) declaring they had vanquished the evil Zionists; b) promoting Palestinian Arab terror; and c) conducting low intensity war on Israel's northern border, while importing Iranian weapons. Israel has now answered with air strikes that cannot destroy, but only punish Hezbollah, allowing the anti-Israel media to claim Goliath Israel is bullying heroic David (Hezbollah-Lebanon). And now, Israel is to withdraw without crushing Hezbollah, allowing Hezbollah's worldwide supporters to claim Israel has been defeated.

This approach - concede (the May 2000 withdrawal), punish (the air strikes and insufficient ground force), and retreat (agreement for a cease fire administered by a UN force, with German "training") - facilitates Islamist recruitment. Islamists teach that super-powerful Jews are trying to humiliate Islam (i.e., the evil Jews punish), but that they are also weak and can be defeated (i.e., the Jews concede and retreat). It also plays into Western-style anti-Semitism, which likewise teaches that Jews are monstrous, but cowardly.

This disastrous policy can be corrected in one way: the people of Israel must topple this government, reject the cease-fire, and empower the IDF to destroy Hezbollah. As the May 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon demonstrates, if that job is not done today, it will be a good deal harder tomorrow.

Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor's Clothes

This article is the revised version of "A Policy of Disaster," by Jared Israel, published 13 August 2006 by Arutz Sheva


Donate to Emperorís Clothes


At Emperorís Clothes we get all our funding from our readers. If you find our work useful, and you can afford to make a donation, please do. Our ability to pay for research tools and other expenses depends on you. Every donation helps, whether it is $5, $50 or $500.  Thank you!

Our best is yet to come.

Hereís how to make a donation:

* By credit card at our secure server
(Accepts Visa, MasterCard, Discover)

* Mail a check to:
Emperor’s Clothes,
P.O. Box 610-321
Newton, MA 02461-0321 (USA)

* By credit card over the phone: 1 (617) 916-1705

Thank You!


 Footnotes and Further Reading


[1]  For evidence that the Lebanese government supported Hezbollah in its televised incitement of Arabs to murder Jews, see 
That it publicly endorsed Hezbollah's six year-long, low intensity war on Israel's northern border see, regarding the year 2000
and regarding the year 2005, see the Lebanese Daily Star news report, archived in full at

b) I have posted three comments with useful source material on Shebaa Farms at 
and at
and, regarding the UN's May 2000 ruling rejecting Lebanese and Syrian claims about Shebaa Farms as unfounded, see footnote
[11] below.

[2]  See Radio Free Europe dispatch, "Iran: Is Tehran Protecting Its Investment In Hizballah?" at

[3] We have a lot of material regarding Germany's role, some of it not yet translated from German.  If you wish to be notified when this is posted on Emperor's Clothes please drop us a line at

[4] For example, see the Jerusalem Post article, "Report: Olmert favors German forces," at
It is also archived at

[5] For example, the IDF reports that the Israeli air force dropped Arabic-language fliers warning civilians prior to bombing Hezbollah targets in the south Lebanese town of Qana. A scan of the flier is posted on the Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, at
That page is archived on TENC at 
Besides the scan of the flier with translation, it includes links to videos from reconnaissance aircraft, showing rocket launchers fired from and being hidden in residential neighborhoods, and a link to the transcript of "Israel Defense Forces press conference following the Kafr Qana incident," which you can access directly at 
and which transcript is archived on TENC at

[6] See for example

[7] See "Palestinian Authority Police Chief (and Top Terrorist) in Jenin Admits Hezbollah's 'Aid' Has Made West Bank Terror Possible," at

[8] See "US and UK Set Israel Up for Media Attack and NATO-Type Intervention," at

[9] See for example, "Hezbollah 's TV Station, Al Manar, Broadcasts Medieval Antisemitic Hate Stories," at

[10] See for example the video "Photo Fraud in Lebanon," at

[11] [Note: This footnote is the full text of the article, "Lebanon's Bankruptcy and UN Treachery Concerning the Sheba Farms Mock-Dispute," posted at ]

In May 2000, Secretary General Kofi Annan issued a report, politely stating that Lebanon and Syria had manufactured the Shebaa Farms issue to coincide with Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The report, which the UN Security Council endorsed a month later, did not discuss what motivated Lebanon and Syria, but that became obvious: to provide a pretext for Hezbollah's low-intensity war against Israel, following Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon.  And indeed, Lebanon has used the phony issue as a pretext for publicly supporting the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and other acts of war, for the past six years.  (See for example the Lebanese information minister's remarks, made on US Television in October 2000 and a news report of the Siniora government's endorsement of Hezbollah's war in July 2005.)

Here's the duplicity: despite knowing - and, in diplomatic language, stating! - that the Shebaa Farms issue was a fabrication, neither the UN, nor any of its members, including the US, have charged Lebanon with an international crime. (Launching an unjustified war is the most serious of war crimes.) The so-called international community's deceit has been extreme, with the Security Council every year a) expressing grave concern over the fighting in and around Israel's northern border, while acting as if everyone - and mainly Israel - were at fault; b) formally urging Lebanon to speedily send troops to the Israeli border in accord with Resolution 425, under which Israel did its part by withdrawing, even though Lebanon has not only not sent troops but has continually and openly backed Hezbollah's war at the border and c) renewing the mandate of UNIFIL (the UN Interim Force in Lebanon) whose purpose was supposed to be to make sure Israel withdrew (a dead issue after May 2000) and to help Lebanon deploy to the border. By renewing UNIFIL every year  at Lebanon's request, and not denouncing Lebanon for using Shebaa Farms as a false justification for war, the UN has provided a cover for Lebanon/Hezbollah's anti-Israel war.

And now the American and French-sponsored UN cease fire agreement provides for negotiation over this Shebaa Farms 'dispute,' thus lending the UN stamp of approval, after the fact, to six years of unprovoked war by Hezbollah and Lebanon, with Iranian and Syrian support - a war over an 'issue' which the UN dismissed as an obvious fabrication six years ago.

Truly beyond belief.

The 22 May 2000 UN report  can be read at

The key paragraphs are 17 and 18, posted in full below:

[Excerpt from "Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978)" starts here]

17. On 15 May 2000, the United Nations received a map, dated 1966, from the Government of Lebanon which reflected the Government's position that these farmlands were located in Lebanon. However, the United Nations is in possession of 10 other maps issued after 1966 by various Lebanese government institutions, including the Ministry of Defence and the army, all of which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. The United Nations has also examined six maps issued by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, including three maps since 1966, which place the farmlands inside the Syrian Arab Republic. On the basis of the Agreement on Disengagement between Israeli and Syrian forces of 31 May 1974 and its Protocol concerning the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which included maps initialed by Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic, the Shab'a farmlands fall within the scope of the area of operations of UNDOF. The area coming under the mandate of UNDOF has remained unchanged until the present time. It follows that in adopting resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), the Security Council could not have included as part of the UNIFIL area of operations an area which had already formed part of the UNDOF area of operations. It is worth noting that, notwithstanding the conflicting evidence to which I have alluded, and whatever the present understanding between Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic, these farmlands lie in an area occupied by Israel since 1967 and are therefore subject to Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) calling for an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory. (A total of 81 maps were available to the United Nations from various sources dating from before and after 1966; 25 of these were issued by the Governments of Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic.)

[Comment begins here]

The duplicity of the UN is evident in the above remarks regarding UN Resolution 242, which, contrary to the above, does not dictate unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Rather, it calls for "the application of both the following principles," one of which is Israeli withdrawal from (unspecified) territories "occupied in the recent [1967] conflict" and the other of which is the "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."


Since, as of May 2000, Syria had, for 33 years, not only called for Israel's destruction, but provided sanctuary, arms, money, and the transport of arms, money and personnel, for terrorist groups bent on destroying Israel - since therefore Syria had been for over three decades in violation of the central point of Resolution 242, its perhaps utopian hope for reasonable behavior on the part of the Arab regimes, followed by peace - thereforfe it is  grotesque for Mr. Annan to cite Resolution 242 in order to snipe at Israel.  And especially grotesque to do so precisely when he is noting that Syria (and Lebanon) have raised a bogus  issue, Shebaa Farms, the only purpose of which could have been, and indeed, has proven to be, to provide  a "claim for belligerency," that is, a justification for attacking Israel's northern boundary, in direct contradiction to Resolution 242's primary assertion, that every Mideast country must be allowed "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."



-- Jared Israel

[Comment ends here]

18. In the light of these recent developments and of all the documents in the United Nations possession as reviewed, I recommend to the Security Council that a viable solution, which is without prejudice to the positions of Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic concerning their international boundaries, would be to proceed on the basis of the line separating the areas of operation of UNIFIL and UNDOF along the relevant portions of the Lebanese-Syrian boundary. It bears repeating that the adoption of this line by the United Nations for the practical purpose of confirming the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in compliance with resolution 425 (1978) is without prejudice to any internationally recognized border agreement that Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic may wish to conclude in the future.

[Excerpt ends here]

[12] We have a lot of material regarding Germany's role, some of it not yet translated from German.  If you wish to be notified when this is posted on Emperor's Clothes please drop us a line at

Please forward this text or send the link to a friend.
Subscribe to our free newsletter at   
Receive articles from Emperorís Clothes Website

Emperorís Clothes