EXCLUSIVE REPORT – UNIFIL’s role in southern Lebanon: a comprehensive analysis of its operations and relations with Hezbollah which has fired 16000 rockets against Israel to date

0
66

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was established in 1978 under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426, with a clear mandate: to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, restore international peace and security, and assist the Lebanese government in extending its authority over the region. However, since its creation, the mission has faced numerous obstacles, from attacks on its personnel to complex interactions with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). In this analysis, we will explore the origins of UNIFIL, its evolving mandate, its relationship with Hezbollah, and the controversies that have surrounded its operations over the years.

The Establishment of UNIFIL: 1978 and Early Challenges

UNIFIL was deployed in Lebanon in response to Israel’s invasion, known as “Operation Litani,” launched after a cross-border raid by Palestinian militants. On 23 March 1978, the first contingent of UNIFIL troops was reassigned from other UN peacekeeping operations, primarily the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).

The original deployment consisted of approximately 4,000 soldiers, sourced mainly from countries such as Canada, Iran, Sweden, France, Nepal, and Norway. This force quickly grew to 6,000 by May 1978, reflecting the need for an expanded presence due to the complexity of the conflict on the ground. UNIFIL established its headquarters in Naqoura, a small town near the Israeli-Lebanese border. Despite its presence, the situation in Lebanon remained volatile, with Israeli forces continuing to exert influence through their proxies in the South Lebanon Army (SLA).

While UNIFIL was tasked with maintaining peace and ensuring the sovereignty of the Lebanese government, its mission faced significant obstacles. Many of its patrols and positions were hindered by restrictions on movement, constant threats of violence, and an overall lack of cooperation from the involved parties. Several early incidents underscored the dangers faced by UNIFIL personnel. Ambushes, shelling, kidnappings, and sniper fire were common, severely limiting the force’s ability to fulfill its mandate during this initial period (1978-1982). As a result, humanitarian aid and emergency assistance to civilians became one of UNIFIL’s primary roles, even though this was not explicitly part of its original mission.

Lebanon’s Civil War and the 1982 Israeli Invasion

The Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990) created an even more challenging environment for UNIFIL. The force found itself operating in a war-torn region, with various militias and foreign forces (most notably Israel and Syria) vying for control. UNIFIL’s role became increasingly limited, and by the time of Israel’s full-scale invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, the force’s capacity to prevent hostilities had been greatly diminished. Israeli forces, alongside their proxy, the SLA, bypassed or outright overran many of UNIFIL’s positions, as their mission objectives were not aligned with those of the UN peacekeeping mandate.

Throughout the 1982 Lebanon War, UNIFIL’s primary function became the distribution of humanitarian aid. While this was critical in alleviating the suffering of the civilian population, it marked a significant departure from UNIFIL’s original mandate to enforce peace and security. The force also provided medical support to those caught in the conflict, often under fire from various factions involved in the fighting. The invasion demonstrated the limitations of UNIFIL in situations where it lacked the authority or military capacity to intervene effectively in large-scale combat operations.

In response to the deteriorating security situation in Lebanon, the Multinational Force (MNF) was deployed to Beirut, comprising troops from the United States, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The MNF assumed a more active military role than UNIFIL, focusing on stabilizing the Lebanese capital. However, the MNF withdrew by 1984, leaving UNIFIL once again as the primary peacekeeping force in the region, though its operational capacity remained restricted due to the ongoing violence and instability.

The Role of Hezbollah and the Evolving Conflict: 1985-2000

Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia and political party, emerged in the 1980s as a formidable force in southern Lebanon, primarily as a response to Israeli occupation and SLA control. The organization’s military wing engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the SLA, further complicating the operational environment for UNIFIL. From 1985 onwards, the IDF reduced its permanent presence in Lebanon but continued to maintain a security zone in the south, patrolled jointly with SLA forces. This zone was meant to prevent attacks on northern Israel but became a focal point of armed resistance from Hezbollah.

UNIFIL’s role during this period was mostly confined to maintaining checkpoints, conducting patrols, and monitoring Israeli and Hezbollah movements. However, the force was often caught in the crossfire, suffering casualties and dealing with increasing financial constraints. Some member states withheld funding due to dissatisfaction with the mission’s limited progress, and in 1986, France reduced its contribution of troops to UNIFIL. There were also calls to reorganize UNIFIL into a more passive observation group, though these proposals were ultimately rejected.

The situation in southern Lebanon escalated several times during this period. Israel launched major military operations against Hezbollah, including Operation Accountability in 1993 and Operation Grapes of Wrath in 1996. The latter involved a significant bombardment of southern Lebanon by the IDF, including an incident where Israeli forces shelled a UNIFIL compound in Qana, killing 102 civilians who had sought shelter there. Despite these tragedies, UNIFIL continued to operate in the region, but with growing frustrations from both Israel and Hezbollah regarding its neutrality and effectiveness.

In 2000, after prolonged engagement with Hezbollah, Israel unilaterally withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon, fulfilling a key aspect of UNIFIL’s original mandate. This withdrawal allowed UNIFIL to resume its primary military tasks along the “Blue Line,” the UN-demarcated boundary between Lebanon and Israel. The force’s mandate was then restructured to focus on monitoring the ceasefire, maintaining stability in the border regions, and providing humanitarian assistance to the local population.

UNIFIL’s Expanded Mandate Post-2006: Resolution 1701

The 2006 Lebanon War between Israel and Hezbollah marked a turning point in UNIFIL’s operations. After the conflict, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1701, significantly expanding UNIFIL’s mandate. Under this resolution, UNIFIL was authorized to deploy up to 15,000 troops and tasked with monitoring the cessation of hostilities, accompanying the Lebanese Armed Forces as they deployed along the Blue Line, and ensuring that the region between the Blue Line and the Litani River remained free of any armed groups other than the Lebanese government and UNIFIL forces.

Additionally, UNIFIL was authorized to assist the Lebanese government in securing its borders and preventing the smuggling of weapons into the country, particularly from Syria. The mission’s rules of engagement were also revised to permit the use of force in self-defense, as well as to protect civilians and UN personnel in areas where hostile activities were taking place. This marked a significant shift in UNIFIL’s operational scope, as it now had the authority to take more proactive measures to ensure peace and security in its area of operations.

Despite these changes, UNIFIL continued to face criticism from both Israel and Hezbollah. Israel expressed concerns that UNIFIL was not doing enough to prevent Hezbollah’s rearmament, particularly regarding arms smuggling from Syria. Conversely, Hezbollah and some factions within Lebanon accused UNIFIL of siding with Israel and acting as an occupying force. These accusations, while mostly rhetorical, reflect the complex dynamics UNIFIL faces in maintaining neutrality in a region where both sides view the force with suspicion.

Controversies Surrounding UNIFIL’s Operations

Over the years, several controversies have arisen regarding UNIFIL’s effectiveness. Critics have argued that the force has been largely ineffective in preventing Hezbollah from rearming and rebuilding its military infrastructure. In some cases, UNIFIL has been accused of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah’s activities, while others claim that UNIFIL’s reports and statements often fail to address Israel’s repeated violations of Lebanese airspace and other provocations.

UNIFIL’s Post-2006 Operations and The Rising Influence of Hezbollah

Following the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 in August 2006, UNIFIL’s operational environment changed dramatically. The resolution called for a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah after the devastating 34-day war. The expansion of UNIFIL’s mandate allowed for up to 15,000 troops and granted the mission new authority to prevent hostile activities, monitor border regions, and assist the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in maintaining a weapons-free zone between the Blue Line and the Litani River. This area had historically been a stronghold for Hezbollah, which created an immediate challenge for UNIFIL personnel as they were now tasked with navigating a highly volatile region, fraught with political, religious, and military tensions.

Hezbollah’s Integration into Lebanese Politics and Military Resistance

Hezbollah’s status in Lebanon is unique because it operates both as a political party and a militant group, making it difficult for external forces like UNIFIL to distinguish between its political and military activities. Since its emergence in the early 1980s, Hezbollah has cemented itself as a key player in Lebanese politics, participating in elections and even holding cabinet positions in the Lebanese government. At the same time, its military wing has been designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries, including the United States, Israel, and the European Union. This duality complicates UNIFIL’s efforts to enforce a weapons-free zone, as Hezbollah maintains military infrastructure in southern Lebanon under the guise of defending the country from Israeli aggression.

After the 2006 war, Hezbollah shifted its military strategy. Rather than positioning fighters in visible encampments, the organization focused on underground bunkers, tunnel networks, and urban guerrilla warfare tactics to evade detection and retaliation from Israel. These strategies have made it increasingly difficult for UNIFIL to monitor Hezbollah’s military buildup, as much of its infrastructure is now deeply embedded in civilian areas. This blending of military assets with civilian populations has also drawn sharp criticism from Israel, which accuses Hezbollah of using civilians as human shields, further complicating the mission of both UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).

Analysis of LAF-Hezbollah Influence:

  • Dual Influence: The Lebanese Army (LAF) is officially separate from Hezbollah, but Hezbollah’s political and military power in Lebanon limits LAF’s enforcement capabilities, especially in southern Lebanon. This creates complications for UNIFIL, which relies on the LAF for cooperation in its mission.
  • Hezbollah’s Presence: In many cases, Hezbollah operates freely in areas where the LAF and UNIFIL conduct patrols, often setting up military positions or launching rockets close to UNIFIL bases. The LAF’s inability to curb Hezbollah’s activities, particularly near the Blue Line, has often rendered UNIFIL ineffective in fully implementing its mandate to maintain peace and security.
  • UNIFIL’s Role: UNIFIL is tasked with assisting the LAF to restore authority in southern Lebanon, yet it struggles due to Hezbollah’s control and the LAF’s reluctance or inability to confront Hezbollah directly. This indirect relationship impacts UNIFIL’s operational effectiveness and the broader regional stability.

Below is a detailed text table reporting interactions between UNIFIL and the Lebanese Army, covering their cooperation, challenges, and how Hezbollah’s influence affects these interactions:

DateLocationInteraction DescriptionOutcome / Interference
2006-PresentSouthern LebanonAfter the 2006 Lebanon War, UNIFIL’s mandate was reinforced to assist the Lebanese Army (LAF) in securing southern Lebanon and monitoring the Blue Line.LAF presence strengthened, but Hezbollah continued to operate in proximity to UNIFIL and the LAF, affecting LAF’s enforcement of Resolution 1701.
August 2010Lebanon-Israel BorderBorder clashes between Israeli and Lebanese forces after a tree-pruning operation by Israel. UNIFIL coordinated between LAF and IDF.LAF engaged with Israeli forces, and Hezbollah monitored the situation. Tensions underscored the limited control of LAF in containing Hezbollah’s activities.
2018Blue Line, Southern LebanonLAF and UNIFIL cooperated to prevent further Israeli border violations and maintain peace near sensitive areas.While cooperation was effective in day-to-day activities, Hezbollah’s influence on LAF limits their ability to fully control arms smuggling in the region.
2021Marwahin, South LebanonLAF and UNIFIL conducted joint patrols to prevent Hezbollah from establishing military positions in southern Lebanon.Despite efforts, Hezbollah continued to operate in proximity, complicating LAF’s ability to enforce UNIFIL’s mandate on disarmament.
2022Bint Jbeil, South LebanonUNIFIL coordinated with LAF after Hezbollah launched surveillance drones near UNIFIL bases.LAF did not take direct action against Hezbollah drones. This highlights Hezbollah’s influence over local military decisions.
October 2024Southern LebanonDuring clashes between Israel and Hezbollah, UNIFIL, with support from LAF, tried to manage escalating violence near the Blue Line.LAF’s response remained passive as Hezbollah launched rockets toward Israel, showcasing Hezbollah’s de facto military presence near LAF-controlled areas.
copyright debuglies.com

Cooperation and Friction Between UNIFIL and the LAF

A key element of UNIFIL’s expanded mandate under Resolution 1701 was the requirement to work closely with the LAF in ensuring the stability of southern Lebanon. The Lebanese government, under immense political pressure from both Hezbollah and external actors, has been reluctant to take aggressive action against Hezbollah’s military wing, viewing the group as a necessary defense against Israel. This has led to a complex and often strained relationship between the LAF and UNIFIL.

The LAF, while nominally cooperating with UNIFIL in patrolling the southern border and dismantling small arms caches, is seen as being hesitant to confront Hezbollah directly. This hesitation stems from Hezbollah’s deep entrenchment within Lebanese society, particularly in the south, where the group is seen as a protector of the Shiite population. The LAF, comprising diverse sectarian components, is also aware that direct confrontation with Hezbollah could lead to internal conflict within the military itself. As a result, while UNIFIL has worked with the LAF on broader security measures, its ability to enforce the demilitarization of Hezbollah-controlled areas has been limited.

This dynamic is further complicated by Syria’s continued influence in Lebanon, despite its military withdrawal in 2005. Damascus has long provided arms and logistical support to Hezbollah, and there are persistent reports of weapons being smuggled across the Syrian-Lebanese border into Hezbollah’s hands. UNIFIL, despite its mandate, has struggled to prevent this, as many of these operations are covert, conducted under the cover of civilian trade or hidden in remote, mountainous regions that are difficult to patrol effectively.

Hezbollah’s Resilience: Military Buildup and Underground Networks

One of the most significant challenges UNIFIL faces is Hezbollah’s continued military expansion in violation of Resolution 1701. Despite international efforts to curtail its military presence, Hezbollah is widely believed to have rearmed and expanded its capabilities since the 2006 conflict. Various intelligence reports suggest that Hezbollah now possesses an arsenal of over 130,000 rockets and missiles, significantly more than it had during the 2006 war. These weapons include short-range Katyusha rockets, medium-range Fajr-5 missiles, and long-range missiles capable of reaching deep into Israeli territory, including Tel Aviv.

Hezbollah’s arsenal is believed to be supplied largely by Iran, transported through Syria, and stored in underground bunkers scattered across southern Lebanon. These bunkers and tunnel networks have become a defining feature of Hezbollah’s military strategy. Israeli intelligence estimates that many of these tunnels are located near the Blue Line, designed to allow Hezbollah fighters to launch attacks on Israeli forces while remaining hidden from aerial surveillance. Despite UNIFIL’s efforts to monitor the region, these underground networks have proven to be a significant blind spot in the mission’s surveillance capabilities.

In recent years, Israeli military operations have repeatedly targeted Hezbollah’s supply routes and infrastructure, including airstrikes on convoys believed to be transporting advanced weaponry from Syria into Lebanon. However, these operations have done little to curb Hezbollah’s military buildup. The group continues to enhance its precision-guided missile systems, a development that poses a serious threat to Israeli security and has escalated tensions between the two sides.

Hezbollah and UNIFIL: Incidents and Tensions

UNIFIL’s neutrality has often been called into question by both Israel and Hezbollah. Both sides accuse the force of bias, claiming that it either turns a blind eye to Hezbollah’s activities or disproportionately focuses on Israel’s actions. One of the most controversial incidents involving UNIFIL occurred in July 2006, when four UN peacekeepers were killed by Israeli strikes on a UN observation post near Khiam. The Israeli government claimed the strike was accidental, but UN officials asserted that their position had been deliberately targeted. This incident severely damaged Israel’s trust in UNIFIL, a sentiment that persists today.

On the other hand, Hezbollah has also accused UNIFIL of overstepping its mandate. In 2010, several clashes occurred between UNIFIL troops and local residents in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah-backed villagers accused French UNIFIL soldiers of provocative behavior during patrols, including entering private property and taking photographs of homes without permission. The French contingent, operating under UNIFIL’s mandate, was conducting reconnaissance to identify potential Hezbollah military positions, but these operations were met with fierce resistance from the local population. In one notable incident, UNIFIL troops were surrounded by villagers, who blocked their vehicles and forcibly disarmed the soldiers, an event that highlighted the limitations of UNIFIL’s authority in areas dominated by Hezbollah.

Following these incidents, UNIFIL has taken steps to improve its relations with the local population, primarily through community engagement programs aimed at building trust. These programs include medical aid, infrastructure development, and educational initiatives in villages across southern Lebanon. However, the tension between UNIFIL’s military objectives and Hezbollah’s influence in the region remains a significant obstacle to the mission’s success.

The Strategic Importance of UNIFIL’s Maritime Task Force (MTF)

In addition to its ground operations, UNIFIL also operates a Maritime Task Force (MTF), established in October 2006 as part of Resolution 1701. The MTF plays a crucial role in preventing the smuggling of arms and other illicit materials into Lebanon by sea. It is the first naval mission ever conducted by the United Nations, and its significance lies in its ability to monitor and secure the Lebanese coastline, particularly against Iranian and Syrian efforts to supply Hezbollah with advanced weaponry.

The MTF, led initially by Germany and later handed over to Italy, consists of a multinational force that includes ships from Brazil, Greece, Indonesia, and Turkey, among others. The task force works closely with the Lebanese Navy to inspect suspicious vessels and ensure that no illegal arms shipments reach Hezbollah-controlled territories. While the MTF has been successful in intercepting several arms shipments, it faces ongoing challenges due to the complexity of maritime operations and the ingenuity of arms smugglers, who often use small boats and undercover routes to evade detection.

One of the major concerns for the MTF is the growing threat of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, used by Hezbollah for surveillance and potential attacks. These drones, many of which are supplied by Iran, can operate over long distances, providing Hezbollah with critical intelligence on both Israeli military movements and UNIFIL operations. The rise of UAV technology has further complicated the MTF’s ability to secure Lebanese waters, as Hezbollah now has the capability to monitor naval patrols and plan around them.

The Current State of Affairs: 2023-2024 and Israel-Hezbollah Tensions

As of mid-2023 and into October 2024, tensions along the Blue Line between Israel and Hezbollah continue to escalate, but there has been no confirmed large-scale ground invasion by Israeli forces into southern Lebanon. Instead, the conflict has been characterized by smaller skirmishes and targeted military actions, such as airstrikes and artillery exchanges.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have increased surveillance of Hezbollah positions near the Blue Line, using drones, intelligence-gathering aircraft, and long-range artillery to target Hezbollah’s growing military infrastructure. Hezbollah, for its part, has expanded its rocket and missile capabilities, with estimates that it now possesses over 130,000 rockets and missiles of varying ranges. The precision-guided missile systems acquired by Hezbollah pose a significant threat to Israeli military and civilian targets, particularly in northern Israel.

UNIFIL’s Role and Current Challenges

As of 2024, UNIFIL continues to operate with approximately 10,480 military personnel from 41 countries, supported by 239 international civilian staff and 583 local civilian staff. The force’s mandate remains focused on maintaining peace and security along the Blue Line, monitoring ceasefire violations, and assisting the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in keeping the area free from unauthorized weapons and armed groups, particularly Hezbollah.

Despite these efforts, UNIFIL’s operational environment has become increasingly difficult. Hezbollah’s military presence in the area south of the Litani River remains significant, and UNIFIL’s ability to prevent arms smuggling and disarm Hezbollah has been limited. Intelligence reports suggest that Hezbollah continues to receive weapons shipments, particularly from Iran, through Syria, complicating efforts to maintain a weapons-free zone in southern Lebanon.

UNIFIL has also faced frequent obstructions from local populations loyal to Hezbollah, particularly in the form of roadblocks and restrictions on movement. In 2023, there were multiple incidents where UNIFIL patrols were blocked by villagers in southern Lebanon, some of whom accused the peacekeeping force of bias or collaboration with Israeli intelligence.

Recent Incidents and Clashes

Since September 2024, there have been a series of clashes between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, although these have remained localized. In one notable incident on 15 September 2024, a Hezbollah rocket attack targeted an Israeli military outpost near the town of Metula, prompting a swift Israeli airstrike in response. Both sides engaged in short-range artillery duels, but the confrontation did not escalate into a broader conflict.

In response to these heightened tensions, UNIFIL has increased its patrols along the Blue Line, but its ability to mediate between Hezbollah and Israel remains limited. The force continues to focus on maintaining buffer zones and facilitating dialogue between the LAF and the IDF to prevent further escalation.

As of October 2024, the situation remains volatile, but neither side has engaged in a full-scale military operation, although there are concerns that the ongoing skirmishes could spiral into a larger conflict.

Italy’s Position Towards Israel: A Complex Political Landscape Shaped by Hezbollah, UNIFIL, and International Tensions

The relationship between Italy and Israel has been historically complex, rooted in decades of international diplomacy, military cooperation, and ideological differences. Italy, as one of the largest contributors to UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon), plays a significant role in the delicate balance of peacekeeping efforts in southern Lebanon. However, Italy’s current stance, led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Defense Minister Guido Crosetto, has faced scrutiny for its response to Israeli actions, particularly in the context of ongoing conflicts involving Hezbollah, the Lebanese Army, and UNIFIL.

To address the October 2024 incident involving Israel’s attacks on UNIFIL bases, including the Naqoura headquarters, it is essential to focus on the factual details available from both Israeli and UNIFIL perspectives. I will break down the real facts using information from credible sources and explain the dynamics that led to these attacks. Here’s a clear outline:

What Happened on October 10, 2024?

  • Israeli Forces Target UNIFIL Bases: On October 10, 2024, Israeli troops attacked three UNIFIL positions in southern Lebanon, including a major observation post in Naqoura, the UNIFIL headquarters. This action was part of a larger military operation targeting Hezbollah, which has a strong presence in southern Lebanon near UNIFIL positions. The attack resulted in the injury of two Indonesian peacekeepers, who were stationed at the Naqoura observation tower. According to UNIFIL, Israeli forces had been firing near UN positions for several days​.
  • Disabling of Security Systems: On the evening of October 9, 2024, the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) also disabled key components of the video surveillance system, the lighting system, and a radio repeater at the UNP 1-31 and UNP 1-32A bases, which are in the area of responsibility of the Italian contingent. The following morning, small arms fire hit the UNP 1-31 base, and an Israeli tank shell directly struck the Naqoura observation tower​.
  • IDF’s Justification: The IDF justified these attacks by claiming that Hezbollah was using areas near UNIFIL bases to monitor Israeli troop movements and launch attacks on Israel. Israeli military officials stated that they had communicated with UNIFIL, advising peacekeepers to remain in protected spaces as IDF operations were being conducted nearby.
  • Italy’s Response: Italy, which has a significant peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon, strongly condemned the attack. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Defense Minister Guido Crosetto both issued formal protests to Israel, with Crosetto summoning the Israeli ambassador to Italy for an explanation. Crosetto further described the attack as a “potential war crime”, as it violated international law protecting UN personnel and facilities​.
  • Political Fallout: The attacks caused a diplomatic rift between Israel and Italy, as well as other countries contributing troops to UNIFIL. Italy’s stance was firm in condemning the repeated violations of UN bases’ inviolability, especially considering the strategic importance of Naqoura as a command center for UNIFIL. Despite the ongoing military operations, UNIFIL’s mandate was to maintain peace and security, making these incidents highly controversial​.

Why Did This Happen?

  • Hezbollah’s Influence: Hezbollah operates extensively in southern Lebanon, and their presence often overlaps with areas where UNIFIL conducts peacekeeping operations. Despite UNIFIL’s mandate to maintain a neutral zone, Hezbollah has been accused of using civilian areas and UNIFIL positions as cover to launch attacks on Israel, complicating UNIFIL’s role in monitoring the ceasefire along the Blue Line.
  • Israel’s Strategy: Israel’s military strategy focuses on neutralizing Hezbollah’s capability to threaten its northern border. The IDF often argues that Hezbollah positions are set up in close proximity to UNIFIL posts to deliberately use them as shields from Israeli strikes. This creates a tense situation where Israel’s military responses sometimes result in collateral damage to UNIFIL personnel and infrastructure​.
  • UNIFIL’s Limitation: Despite being tasked with overseeing the peace along the Blue Line, UNIFIL has limited authority to engage Hezbollah militarily or prevent its activities. The Lebanese Army also struggles to exert control over Hezbollah, leaving UNIFIL troops in a precarious situation. They are often caught between Israeli military operations and Hezbollah’s actions, leading to repeated violations of UNIFIL’s safety.
  • Italy’s Role in UNIFIL: Italy’s condemnation of the Israeli attacks stems from its long-standing involvement in UNIFIL and its responsibility to protect its troops stationed in Lebanon. Italy has consistently played a major role in peacekeeping but has often found itself at odds with Israeli actions that threaten the safety of UN personnel. The Italian contingent operates in sensitive regions, making these attacks a direct concern for the Italian government.

The October 2024 attacks on UNIFIL bases highlight the delicate and dangerous nature of peacekeeping operations in southern Lebanon, where the presence of Hezbollah and the military responses from Israel continually put UN personnel at risk. While Israel justifies its actions as necessary to protect its security, Italy and other UNIFIL contributors demand stricter respect for international law and the inviolability of UN positions.

The diplomatic fallout from these incidents reflects deeper tensions between UNIFIL’s mandate to maintain peace and the reality on the ground, where Hezbollah’s operations and Israeli counter-attacks create a volatile situation. Italy’s response, including formal protests to Israel and the demand for security guarantees, underscores the significant risks faced by UN peacekeepers and the need for clear protocols to prevent such violations in the future.

These incidents are a stark reminder of the complex dynamics at play in Lebanon, where the interests of multiple actors—Israel, Hezbollah, UNIFIL, and the Lebanese Army—intersect, often with tragic consequences for peacekeepers caught in the crossfire.

Italy’s Diplomatic and Military Role within UNIFIL

Since UNIFIL’s establishment in 1978, its core mission has been to monitor the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, maintain peace, and support the Lebanese government in asserting its authority. Italy has been a strong supporter of UNIFIL, contributing one of the largest contingents of troops and resources. As of 2024, Italy remains heavily involved, with over 1,100 troops stationed in Lebanon, making it one of the largest European contributors to UNIFIL.

Italy’s involvement in UNIFIL serves both a diplomatic and strategic function. On the one hand, it affirms Italy’s commitment to multilateral peacekeeping and international stability, allowing the country to play a prominent role in Middle Eastern diplomacy. On the other hand, Italy’s participation in UNIFIL offers a platform for military cooperation and intelligence gathering, particularly regarding Hezbollah’s activities in southern Lebanon.

Contradictions in Italy’s Policy Towards Hezbollah

Italy’s official stance supports UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for the disarmament of all militias, including Hezbollah. However, Italy, like many UNIFIL participants, faces the reality that Hezbollah remains a dominant military and political force in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese Army, which cooperates with UNIFIL, often coexists with Hezbollah, creating a complex dynamic where Italian peacekeepers are tasked with enforcing international law while working alongside Lebanese forces that do not actively confront Hezbollah.

The Italian contingent within UNIFIL has been involved in numerous efforts to monitor Hezbollah’s activities along the Blue Line, the demarcation between Lebanon and Israel. Despite these efforts, Italy’s role has faced criticism, both domestically and internationally, for not doing enough to prevent Hezbollah from maintaining its arsenal of rockets and missiles, which it frequently uses in conflicts with Israel. This contradiction—participating in a mission that theoretically opposes Hezbollah’s militarization while not directly engaging the group—highlights the limitations of UNIFIL’s mandate and Italy’s ability to navigate these challenges.

Hezbollah’s Impact on Italy’s UNIFIL Operations

Hezbollah’s presence in southern Lebanon has been a persistent challenge for Italy’s UNIFIL mission. The group operates independently of the Lebanese government, maintaining military control over large swathes of southern Lebanon, often in areas close to UNIFIL patrol routes. While the Lebanese Army and UNIFIL work to prevent Hezbollah from launching attacks on Israel, their efforts are frequently undermined by the group’s sophisticated military network.

In recent years, Italy has expressed increasing frustration with the escalating violence between Hezbollah and Israel. In October 2024, following Israeli airstrikes near UNIFIL positions, Italy’s Prime Minister Meloni and Defense Minister Crosetto condemned Israeli actions, demanding security guarantees for Italian troops. This condemnation came after multiple incidents where Israeli artillery inadvertently struck UNIFIL positions, injuring personnel and damaging equipment.

The Italian government has also been critical of Israel’s broader military strategy, which it perceives as disproportionate in its response to Hezbollah’s provocations. This criticism aligns with Italy’s historical support for Palestinian rights and its diplomatic engagement with Arab states, including Lebanon. However, this stance has sparked internal debate, particularly as Italy balances its role within NATO and its alliance with the United States, both of which support Israel’s right to defend itself against Hezbollah.

Domestic Politics: Pro-Palestinian Demonstrations and Rising Anti-Semitism

In Italy, pro-Palestinian demonstrations have become a regular occurrence, especially during periods of heightened violence between Israel and Hamas or Hezbollah. These demonstrations are often marked by strong rhetoric condemning Israel’s military actions, and they have, at times, led to accusations of anti-Semitism. Critics argue that the Italian government’s failure to regulate these demonstrations more strictly has contributed to a rise in anti-Semitic incidents, particularly in major cities like Rome and Milan.

While Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has attempted to maintain a balanced foreign policy, her government has faced criticism from both pro-Israel groups and pro-Palestinian activists. The government’s formal protests against Israeli military actions, such as those in southern Lebanon, are seen by some as pandering to domestic political pressures from left-wing groups that sympathize with the Palestinian cause.

Moreover, Italy’s refusal to fully endorse U.S. and Israeli positions on Hezbollah’s disarmament has further complicated its international standing. While Italy remains a key player in UNIFIL, its inability to confront Hezbollah directly or address the root causes of violence between Israel and Hezbollah leaves it vulnerable to criticism from both sides.

The Reality on the Ground: Hezbollah, Iran, and the War on Israel

As the situation in Lebanon and Gaza continues to escalate, Hezbollah’s actions, often backed by Iran, play a pivotal role in shaping the regional conflict. Iran’s financial and military support for Hezbollah has allowed the group to maintain a significant arsenal of missiles, drones, and advanced weaponry, which it frequently uses against Israel. Despite repeated Israeli attempts to destroy Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, the group remains a formidable force, capable of launching large-scale attacks on northern Israel.

In recent months, Hezbollah has escalated its rocket attacks on Israeli cities, prompting Israeli retaliatory strikes on Hezbollah positions in Lebanon. These strikes have occasionally hit UNIFIL bases, further complicating Italy’s position. Prime Minister Meloni has been vocal in her criticism of Israel’s military actions, particularly when they have resulted in the injury or death of Italian soldiers stationed in Lebanon. This has led to a growing sense of frustration within the Italian government, which has called for greater international pressure on Israel to cease its attacks on Lebanese territory.

Alerts by source since October 7 – 2023

From DateTo DateHamas (Gaza) N. AlertsHezbollah (southern Lebanon) N. AlertsIran  N. AlertsHouthis Yemen N. Alerts
07/10/202327/10/202358851161
28/10/202317/11/2023849530
18/11/202308/12/2023707429
09/12/202329/12/2023326406
30/12/202319/01/2024182477
20/01/202409/02/202460206
10/02/202401/03/202431350
02/03/202422/03/202412340
23/03/202412/04/202432465
13/04/202404/05/20249390688
05/05/202425/05/2024801171
26/05/202415/06/2024481382
16/06/202406/07/202467601
08/07/202427/07/202444662
28/07/202417/08/202437494
18/08/202407/09/20249763
08/09/202428/09/2024122873375
29/09/202410/10/2024502302186223
TOTAL844015002874598
COPYRIGHT DEBUGLIES.COM

The Role of Iran and Regional Geopolitics

Iran’s role in supporting Hezbollah and other militant groups in the region has been a major driver of the ongoing conflict. Through its financial and military backing, Iran has enabled Hezbollah to amass a significant arsenal of weapons, which it uses to threaten Israel. In recent years, Israel has conducted numerous airstrikes on Hezbollah weapons convoys traveling through Syria from Iran, as well as on Hezbollah’s missile facilities in Lebanon.

The Iran-Hezbollah-Israel conflict is further complicated by broader regional dynamics involving Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, where Iranian-backed militias have launched attacks on Israel. Italy, as part of its role within UNIFIL, has condemned these attacks but has remained cautious about directly criticizing Iran, given its diplomatic relationships with many Arab states. This cautious approach has led some to accuse Italy of being too lenient on Hezbollah and Iran, thus undermining its ability to act as a neutral peacekeeper in Lebanon.

The Realities of Israel’s Defensive Struggles Against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s Proxies

A Nation Under Siege

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has faced an unprecedented escalation of attacks from its surrounding enemies, primarily Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iran-backed proxies. As evident from the alert data, Israel is under constant threat, particularly from the north by Hezbollah and Gaza by Hamas. These attacks have forced mass evacuations of civilians, leaving much of Israel on high alert. Despite media portrayals, Israel is engaging in defensive operations to protect its citizens from continuous missile attacks and terrorist activity. This article aims to clarify the realities on the ground, addressing Hamas’ massacre of over a thousand Israeli civilians and Hezbollah’s role as Iran’s proxy in Lebanon.

October 7, 2023: A Day of Unprecedented Horror

On October 7, 2023, Israel faced one of the deadliest and most organized assaults in its modern history. The terrorist group Hamas, operating from the Gaza Strip, launched a surprise, coordinated attack against Israeli civilians, resulting in a horrifying massacre. Over 1,200 men, women, and children—including 46 Americans and citizens from more than 30 countries—were brutally murdered. This included direct attacks on civilians, as well as indiscriminate rocket fire that targeted Israeli cities and towns.

The assault marked the beginning of a relentless barrage of rockets from Hamas, with 5,885 missile alerts recorded by the end of October 2023. Civilians were forced into bomb shelters, and many in the south and center of Israel had to evacuate their homes to seek refuge in safer areas.

In addition to the massacre, Hamas kidnapped 254 individuals, among them 12 Americans, taking them hostage and transporting them to Gaza. As of today, 101 hostages remain captive, including seven Americans: Itay Chen, Judith Weinstein, Gad Haggai, Edan Alexander, Keith Siegl, Sagui Dekel-Chen, and Omer Neutra. The international community, led by the United States, continues to demand the immediate release of these hostages, as efforts to bring them home remain a top priority.

The October 7 attacks not only plunged Israel into mourning but also ignited a war that continues to have devastating consequences for both Israeli and Palestinian civilians. The conflict has resulted in substantial loss of life on both sides, and efforts toward achieving a ceasefire remain a key focus of international diplomacy, including appeals from the United States to alleviate the suffering and end the violence.

The sheer scale of the massacre, combined with the abduction of civilians, underscores the brutality of Hamas’s actions, which continue to define the conflict in the region.

Hezbollah: A Proxy of Iran and a Northern Threat

Simultaneously, Hezbollah, operating from southern Lebanon, launched its own wave of attacks on Israel. Between October 7 and October 27, 2023, 1,161 alerts were triggered by Hezbollah’s missile fire. Hezbollah is not merely a rogue group operating independently; it is fully supported by Iran both financially and militarily. Hezbollah’s objectives align with Iran’s overarching goal of destabilizing Israel and eroding its security.

Escalation in Southern Lebanon

Hezbollah’s assault from the north only intensified as the months passed. The data reveals that Hezbollah launched more than 2,873 attacks between September 8 and September 28, 2024, and 2,302 attacks from September 29 to October 10, 2024, putting northern Israeli cities such as Haifa and Metula in direct danger. These bombardments are significant not just in terms of quantity but also in the strategic intent behind them—to divert Israel’s military resources, create internal chaos, and act as a proxy for Iran in the region.

Iran’s Role: The Puppet Master

Iran’s involvement in these attacks cannot be understated. Through direct support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Iran is a key instigator of the violence. The alert data highlights 874 attacks linked to Iranian proxies, reflecting the reach of Iran’s influence beyond Lebanon, even to Houthis in Yemen. Iran’s financial support, weapons supplies, and logistical backing allow these groups to launch sustained attacks on Israeli territory.

Hezbollah’s Objective: The Annihilation of Israel

Iran’s support for Hezbollah is aimed at one clear goal: the eventual destruction of Israel. Hezbollah’s actions serve as a clear representation of this ambition. Acting as a well-armed Iranian proxy, Hezbollah has amassed thousands of missiles, many of which have long-range capabilities. This ongoing missile threat has led to the evacuation of northern Israeli cities, with thousands of residents forced to flee to the center of the country or relocate to safer regions.

The Evacuation of Northern Israel

Given the persistent threat from Hezbollah, the Israeli government took immediate action to evacuate citizens living in the north of the country. This includes the evacuation of residents from border towns and those living within missile range of southern Lebanon. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have been fortifying the border, anticipating further escalations.

The Houthis in Yemen: Another Iranian Proxy

In addition to Hamas and Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, another Iran-backed group, have also launched missile attacks against Israel. As the alert data shows, there have been 598 alerts linked to the Houthis, with 223 alerts between September 29 and October 10, 2024. The Houthi insurgency, originally a Yemeni conflict, has now expanded its operations to target Israel, aligning with Iran’s broader strategy of attacking Israeli interests across the region.

Why Does the World Fail to Recognize Israel’s Struggles?

Despite these constant missile attacks and the very real threat to its citizens, Israel continues to face criticism on the international stage. Many in the global media portray Israel as an aggressor, failing to recognize the unrelenting attacks it faces from its neighbors. This narrative, which often omits the thousands of missile attacks and the 1,000+ Israeli civilian deaths on October 7, contributes to an inaccurate portrayal of Israel’s defensive military operations.

Manipulation of International Media

There is a significant gap between the reality of Israel’s defensive operations and the media narratives presented in many parts of the world. Israel is frequently portrayed as the aggressor in conflicts with Palestinians and Hezbollah, despite the clear data showing the overwhelming number of attacks originating from Gaza and southern Lebanon. Hezbollah’s ongoing rocket fire and Iran’s strategic support remain underreported, even though they pose an existential threat to Israeli civilians.

The Role of UNIFIL and Hezbollah’s Control Over Southern Lebanon

A critical element of Hezbollah’s operations in southern Lebanon is its near-total control over the region, despite the presence of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Hezbollah uses villages and civilian areas as cover for their rocket-launching sites, rendering UNIFIL largely ineffective in curbing Hezbollah’s military actions. As of October 2024, UNIFIL remains unable to disarm Hezbollah or prevent its military buildup in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

The Stark Reality of Israel’s Fight for Survival

The data presented—15,002 Hezbollah missile alerts, 8,440 Hamas alerts, 598 Houthi attacks, and 874 Iranian-related alerts—clearly demonstrates that Israel is under siege from multiple fronts. The evacuation of its northern cities, the continued bombardment of its towns, and the massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas are all clear indications of the real threat Israel faces on a daily basis.

Far from being the aggressor, Israel’s military operations are designed to defend its population from destruction. This is a fight for survival, waged against not just Hamas or Hezbollah but the broader Iranian agenda of destabilizing the Middle East and erasing Israel from the map.

UNIFIL’s Role in the 2023-2024 Context

UNIFIL remains stationed in southern Lebanon, conducting routine patrols and facilitating communication between the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to prevent skirmishes from escalating into a broader conflict. Despite its best efforts, UNIFIL has faced growing criticism regarding its ability to prevent Hezbollah’s militarization of southern Lebanon and its failure to curb arms smuggling operations, which continue across the porous Lebanese-Syrian border.

The situation along the Blue Line has worsened, with several reported incidents of clashes between Hezbollah fighters and Israeli forces. Hezbollah’s rocket launches, often sporadic and aimed at provoking responses from Israel, have led to Israeli retaliatory airstrikes targeting Hezbollah’s military infrastructure. However, as of October 2024, both sides have refrained from a full-scale conflict, preferring to engage in limited, controlled military actions designed to avoid large civilian casualties.

In this context, UNIFIL personnel have found themselves in increasingly precarious situations, particularly in villages near the Blue Line where Hezbollah maintains influence. While UNIFIL continues to patrol and monitor the area, it has limited capacity to intervene in military operations, leading some critics to question the mission’s efficacy in fulfilling its expanded mandate.

The Reality of UNIFIL’s Role and Global Discrimination Against Israel

The Hezbollah Missile Crisis and UNIFIL’s Failure

The core of the current conflict in southern Lebanon centers around Hezbollah’s use of southern Lebanon as a base to launch thousands of missile attacks on Israel. As your data illustrates, Hezbollah alone has launched over 15,000 rocket alerts from southern Lebanon since October 2023. This should be a direct affront to the very raison d’être of UNIFIL, whose mission is to ensure peace and security along the border.

Alerts by day since Oct 7 2023

 Hamas GazaHezbollah (Southern Lebanon)IranHouthis (Yemen)
TOTAL842814960874598
copyright debuglies.com
Most targeted communities
Kiryat Shmona318
Netiv HaAssara236
Ashkelon Southern Industrial Zone225
Sderot, Ivys, Nir Am207
Kissufim191
Ashkelon – South183
Tel Hai171
Nachal Oz169
Margaliot165
Shlomi152
copyright debuglies.com
Most targeted regions
Confrontation Line4827
Gaza Envelope2716
Lakhish2085
Shfela (Lowlands)1852
Upper Galilee1552
Western Lakhish1041
Dan888
HaAmakim737
Central Negev716
Shfelat Yehuda590
copyright debuglies.com

So Where is UNIFIL?

UNIFIL, theoretically, should be the first line of defense in this crisis. Established in 1978, UNIFIL’s primary mission is to monitor ceasefire agreements and ensure that no hostile activities take place in southern Lebanon, particularly along the Blue Line — the UN-drawn border between Israel and Lebanon. However, Hezbollah’s missile barrages, some of which are visible in the data, reveal that UNIFIL has largely been ineffective in preventing Hezbollah’s militarization of the area.

Why Is UNIFIL Ineffective?

  • Hezbollah’s Local Control: Hezbollah exercises significant political and military control over southern Lebanon. While UNIFIL has some 10,000 peacekeepers stationed in the area, they are heavily restricted in their movements and operations due to Hezbollah’s dominance and the implicit support it enjoys from segments of the Lebanese population and government. This severely limits UNIFIL’s ability to patrol effectively, intervene in hostile activities, or dismantle Hezbollah’s growing missile infrastructure.
  • Political Constraints: UNIFIL’s mandate is heavily restricted by political agreements and the fragile relationship it maintains with both the Lebanese government and Hezbollah. UNIFIL lacks the legal framework or military mandate to disarm Hezbollah or stop its militarization. Hezbollah’s political and military integration into Lebanese society has complicated any serious attempt to rein in its activities.
  • Fear of Escalation: UNIFIL operates under the constant threat of being dragged into full-scale conflict with Hezbollah, a heavily armed militia with significant resources and backing from Iran. UNIFIL’s rules of engagement are designed to prevent escalations and limit direct confrontation, effectively neutralizing its ability to proactively intervene when Hezbollah operates militarily in the region.
  • Lebanon’s Internal Politics: Hezbollah has deep political roots in Lebanon, and it holds considerable sway in the Lebanese Parliament. As a result, the Lebanese Army (LAF) — with whom UNIFIL is supposed to collaborate — often turns a blind eye to Hezbollah’s military buildup. The LAF’s limited will, and capacity, to confront Hezbollah means that UNIFIL lacks critical local support, rendering it even more ineffective.

Global Discrimination Against Israel: Why the Double Standards?

The larger question surrounding this conflict is not just the ineffectiveness of UNIFIL, but the widespread international discrimination against Israel. Despite constant attacks from Hezbollah and Iranian-backed proxies, Israel continues to face disproportionate criticism from the global community. Several reasons account for this:

Persistent Anti-Israel Bias in International Institutions

International institutions like the United Nations have historically shown a disproportionate focus on condemning Israel, while ignoring or minimizing the threats posed by groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), for example, frequently issues resolutions condemning Israeli actions, while doing little to address the systemic violence emanating from Hezbollah or Hamas. This bias distorts the global perception of the conflict, making it seem as though Israel’s retaliatory measures are unprovoked and unjustified.

Hezbollah’s Effective Propaganda Machine

Hezbollah, backed by Iran, has invested heavily in crafting a global narrative that portrays itself as a legitimate resistance movement. By positioning itself as the defender of Lebanon against Israeli “aggression,” Hezbollah gains sympathy from various international actors, even though its tactics include indiscriminate missile attacks on Israeli civilians, as your data clearly shows.

This narrative is further amplified by media outlets sympathetic to Hezbollah’s cause, leading to a skewed portrayal of Israel as the aggressor, while downplaying Hezbollah’s violations of international law.

Iran’s Regional Strategy

Iran’s broader regional strategy hinges on proxies like Hezbollah to maintain pressure on Israel without risking direct confrontation. By empowering groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran ensures that Israel remains entangled in perpetual conflicts on its borders, weakening its international standing and ability to focus on long-term strategic interests. Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israel, supported by Iran’s sophisticated weapons technology, are part of a larger plan to destabilize Israel and create constant security threats.

Europe’s Reluctance to Act

Many European countries have adopted a pragmatic but flawed approach to Hezbollah, often distinguishing between its political and military wings. By refusing to label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization in its entirety, some European nations avoid direct confrontation with Lebanon and Iran. This approach ignores Hezbollah’s role in fostering regional instability and allows the group to operate unchecked in southern Lebanon.

Global Anti-Semitism

The rise in global anti-Semitism, often disguised as anti-Zionism, fuels a hostile environment against Israel. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations across the world frequently blur the lines between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and anti-Semitic rhetoric, contributing to the demonization of Israel on the international stage.

This rhetoric fosters international indifference to the existential threats Israel faces, including Hezbollah’s missile barrages and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The discrimination against Israel is further compounded by the fact that no other country would tolerate such sustained missile attacks on its civilians without significant international backing for its defense.

The Data Speaks for Itself: An Escalating Conflict

The data you have provided is a stark reminder of the scale of the conflict and the ongoing threat Israel faces from Iran’s proxies:

  • Missile Attacks by Hezbollah: Southern Lebanon, particularly the Upper Galilee and Confrontation Line, have been the target of over 15,000 missile alerts from Hezbollah. These indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians, infrastructure, and towns represent a clear violation of international law, yet international bodies remain largely silent on Hezbollah’s war crimes.
  • The Geopolitical Isolation of Israel: While Israel has normalized relations with several Arab nations through the Abraham Accords, it remains isolated in the face of Iranian-backed attacks. Many Western nations continue to press Israel for diplomatic solutions, ignoring the imminent and existential threats posed by Iran and Hezbollah.

Conclusion: What Needs to Change?

The global community must recognize that discriminating against Israel for defending itself against a persistent, well-armed threat like Hezbollah is not only unjust but dangerously short-sighted. Hezbollah, with Iran’s backing, poses a threat not just to Israel, but to regional stability in the Middle East.

If UNIFIL is to serve any meaningful purpose, it must be reinforced with a stronger mandate that includes actively preventing Hezbollah’s militarization of southern Lebanon. The world’s double standards toward Israel must also be addressed; otherwise, Israel will continue to face unwarranted criticism while defending its citizens from the terrorist onslaught orchestrated by Iran and its proxies.

The discrimination against Israel is rooted in a misunderstanding of the conflict, fueled by propaganda, political bias, and anti-Semitic undercurrents. For any real progress to be made, the international community must stop holding Israel to a double standard and recognize the real threats it faces on all sides.

Israeli Military Presence on the Lebanon Border (2023-2024)

As of October 2024, Israel has stationed significant military assets along its northern border with Lebanon due to the rising tensions with Hezbollah. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) maintain a permanent presence along the Blue Line, including both infantry and armored units prepared to respond to any aggression from Hezbollah. The IDF has placed a strong emphasis on defensive and pre-emptive measures, particularly in the wake of Hezbollah’s growing arsenal.

  • Troop Numbers on the Border: Israeli troop presence near the Lebanese border is estimated to be between 15,000 to 20,000 soldiers as part of Northern Command. This includes a mix of regular IDF brigades and reserves, which have been called up for specific periods of heightened alert.
    • Infantry and Armored Units: Key units deployed include Golani Brigade and 7th Armored Brigade, both of which have been stationed near border outposts and villages such as Metula and Kiryat Shmona. These forces are heavily equipped with Merkava tanks, Namer armored personnel carriers (APCs), and Artillery Corps units, which have been regularly conducting training exercises simulating potential incursions into southern Lebanon.
    • Artillery and Rocket Systems: Israel has positioned MLRS systems (Multiple Launch Rocket Systems) and Iron Dome batteries along the northern border to counter Hezbollah’s rocket and missile threat. The Iron Dome system, which is designed to intercept short- and medium-range rockets, has been crucial in defending Israeli towns from potential rocket fire.
  • Air and Surveillance Assets: The Israeli Air Force (IAF) maintains constant surveillance flights over southern Lebanon, using a combination of fighter jets, drones (Heron and Eitan UAVs), and helicopters (AH-64 Apache). These assets are used to monitor Hezbollah activity, and in some cases, pre-emptive airstrikes have been conducted on weapons depots or suspected missile launch sites.
  • Special Operations Units: Israel’s elite Sayeret Matkal and Shayetet 13 commando units have been reportedly conducting covert reconnaissance operations near the border, aimed at gathering intelligence on Hezbollah’s underground bunkers and weapons caches. These units are known for their ability to carry out deep incursions into enemy territory, though specific missions remain classified.

Israel Unifil Incidents

DateLocationDescription of IncidentParties InvolvedOutcome/Impact
Feb 2007Southern LebanonIsraeli forces fired warning shots at a UNIFIL patrol near the Blue LineIsrael, UNIFILNo casualties; increased tension; calls for restraint by UN
Sept 2009GhajarIsraeli forces crossed into a disputed area, leading to a standoff with UNIFILIsrael, UNIFILNo injuries; diplomatic discussions held to de-escalate
July 2010AdaissehExchange of fire between Israeli forces and Lebanese Army in the presence of UNIFILIsrael, UNIFIL3 Lebanese soldiers, 1 journalist killed; UNIFIL called for calm
May 2012Shebaa FarmsIsraeli forces obstructed UNIFIL from patrolling near the borderIsrael, UNIFILTemporary blockade; UN complaint filed; diplomatic talks held
Nov 2013Ras al-NaqouraIsraeli aircraft conducted low-altitude flights over UNIFIL positionsIsrael, UNIFILNo direct confrontation; UNIFIL expressed concern to Israel
Aug 2015KhiamIsraeli forces fired warning shots at UNIFIL personnel monitoring border activityIsrael, UNIFILUNIFIL personnel retreated; heightened alert in the area
Jan 2017MetulaIsraeli tanks approached the Blue Line during a UNIFIL patrolIsrael, UNIFILNo incidents reported; UNIFIL called for de-escalation
March 2018Meis al-JabalUNIFIL personnel blocked from monitoring Israeli construction near the Blue LineIsrael, UNIFILTemporary restriction; UNIFIL urged respect for freedom of movement
June 2019BlidaIsraeli drone flew dangerously close to a UNIFIL convoyIsrael, UNIFILNo casualties; UNIFIL filed a complaint with Israeli authorities
April 2020Maroun al-RasIsraeli forces fired tear gas to disperse UNIFIL personnel approaching the fenceIsrael, UNIFILNo injuries; increased tensions between UNIFIL and Israel
Oct 2021HulaIsraeli forces detained UNIFIL patrol briefly, citing “suspicious movement”Israel, UNIFILPatrol released after one hour; incident raised at UN forums
Feb 2022RmeishUNIFIL convoy was denied access to a monitoring site by Israeli forcesIsrael, UNIFILDiplomatic engagement followed; UNIFIL raised freedom of movement issue
Dec 2022Shebaa FarmsIsraeli artillery shells landed close to a UNIFIL observation postIsrael, UNIFILNo injuries; UNIFIL called for avoidance of live fire near positions
Aug 2023Kfar ShoubaIsraeli forces restricted UNIFIL’s movement during heightened military operationsIsrael, UNIFILRestricted access; no confrontations; UNIFIL reported to UN HQ
May 2024MarjayounIsraeli drone made multiple passes over a UNIFIL positionIsrael, UNIFILNo direct confrontation; formal diplomatic note issued by UNIFIL
Sept 2024AitarounIsraeli forces briefly blocked a UNIFIL patrol from accessing disputed territoryIsrael, UNIFILStandoff resolved; no escalation; diplomatic protest filed
copyright debuglies.com

Hezbollah’s Military Presence in Southern Lebanon

Hezbollah, regarded as one of the most powerful non-state armed groups in the world, has continued to build up its forces in southern Lebanon despite the presence of UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces. As of 2024, Hezbollah’s military strength in southern Lebanon remains substantial, with estimates suggesting the group has around 25,000 to 30,000 active fighters, with an additional 20,000 to 25,000 reservists who can be mobilized in the event of a large-scale conflict.

  • Rocket and Missile Arsenal: Hezbollah’s most significant military advantage lies in its vast stockpile of 130,000 to 150,000 rockets and missiles, which includes:
    • Short-range rockets: Like the Katyusha rockets, which have a range of 20-40 km, and are often used in cross-border attacks on northern Israeli towns.
    • Medium-range missiles: Hezbollah is also believed to possess Fajr-5 and M600 missiles, which have ranges up to 250-300 km, potentially threatening Israeli cities as far south as Tel Aviv.
    • Precision-guided missiles: More concerning are Hezbollah’s precision-guided missile systems, many of which have been supplied by Iran. These systems, such as the Fateh-110, allow Hezbollah to target specific military and civilian sites with great accuracy, posing a significant challenge to Israel’s air defense systems.
  • Underground Bunkers and Tunnel Networks: Hezbollah has developed an extensive network of underground bunkers and tunnels in southern Lebanon, particularly in areas like Nabatieh and Bint Jbeil. These bunkers are designed to store weapons, house command centers, and provide shelters for fighters. Hezbollah’s underground infrastructure has proven difficult to detect, even for Israel’s advanced surveillance technology.
  • Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft Capabilities: Hezbollah fighters are well-equipped with Russian-made Kornet anti-tank missiles, capable of penetrating even the advanced armor of Israel’s Merkava tanks. Additionally, Hezbollah is believed to have acquired man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), such as SA-18 Igla and possibly more advanced Iranian systems, which could pose a threat to low-flying Israeli helicopters and aircraft.

Hezbollah’s Command and Recruitment Structure

Hezbollah operates under a highly disciplined and hierarchical command structure, with Hassan Nasrallah as its Secretary-General and primary political and military leader. Nasrallah maintains close ties with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which plays a key role in training Hezbollah’s military personnel and providing advanced weaponry.

  • Recruitment and Training: Hezbollah recruits heavily from the Shia population of southern Lebanon, offering both financial incentives and ideological motivation centered around resistance to Israel. Fighters undergo rigorous training, often conducted by IRGC instructors, and are rotated between combat roles in Syria (where Hezbollah has been active in supporting the Assad regime) and defensive positions in Lebanon.

Recent Military Clashes and Escalations (2023-2024)

Throughout 2023 and into 2024, there have been a number of significant skirmishes between Hezbollah and the IDF, although these have mostly remained limited in scope. Notable incidents include:

  • March 2024: Hezbollah launched a series of rocket attacks on Israeli positions near Mount Dov (Shebaa Farms), following an Israeli airstrike on a weapons convoy believed to be transporting Iranian-made precision-guided missiles. The IDF responded with artillery barrages and airstrikes on Hezbollah positions near the towns of Maroun al-Ras and Aitaroun.
  • July 2024: A brief cross-border firefight occurred after Hezbollah fighters attempted to breach the Israeli border fence near the town of Ghajar, a contested village that straddles the Lebanon-Israel border. The IDF repelled the attack using sniper fire and drone strikes, but the incident highlighted the ongoing potential for escalation.
  • September 2024: In one of the most serious incidents of the year, Hezbollah launched over 20 rockets into northern Israel, targeting military installations near Rosh Hanikra and Kiryat Shmona. The Iron Dome intercepted most of the rockets, but the IDF launched a significant retaliatory strike on Hezbollah’s infrastructure, including underground storage facilities and rocket launch sites in the Beqaa Valley.

Hezbollah Unifil Incidents

DateLocationDescription of IncidentParties InvolvedOutcome/Impact
Jan 2006Southern LebanonHezbollah fighters clashed with UNIFIL forces near the Blue LineHezbollah, UNIFILNo casualties reported; increased tension along Blue Line
July 2006TyreUNIFIL convoy attacked during Israeli-Hezbollah warHezbollah, UNIFILOne UN peacekeeper injured; restricted UNIFIL movements
Oct 2007KhiamHezbollah members prevented UNIFIL patrol from accessing suspected weapons siteHezbollah, UNIFILStandoff resolved without escalation; led to area patrol cuts
June 2011MarjayounRoadside bomb targeted UNIFIL convoy, believed to be planted by HezbollahHezbollah, UNIFIL6 UN peacekeepers wounded; security restrictions increased
May 2013RmaichUNIFIL patrol faced stone-throwing by locals believed to be influenced by HezbollahHezbollah, Locals, UNIFILPatrol retreat; no major injuries; tense relations
Aug 2015Shebaa FarmsHezbollah fighters set IED on UNIFIL patrol routeHezbollah, UNIFILMinor injuries reported; UNIFIL condemned the incident
Jan 2016Ras al-BayyadaArmed Hezbollah operatives obstructed UNIFIL in establishing observation postsHezbollah, UNIFILVerbal exchange; UNIFIL withdrew; reported incident to UN
Dec 2017Bint JbeilHezbollah members surrounded UNIFIL, blocking access to local infrastructureHezbollah, UNIFILStandoff for several hours; UNIFIL retreated
Feb 2019Al-MajdalUNIFIL convoy was blocked and searched by Hezbollah fightersHezbollah, UNIFILIncreased calls for cooperation; UNIFIL temporarily halted patrols
April 2020MarwahinHezbollah launched propaganda campaign against UNIFIL accusing bias towards IsraelHezbollah, UNIFILMedia tensions; no physical confrontation
July 2020BlidaHezbollah restricted UNIFIL’s movement near suspected arms depotHezbollah, UNIFILShort standoff; diplomatic complaint filed by UNIFIL
Nov 2021Ayta ash ShabUNIFIL patrol attacked by armed locals, potentially directed by HezbollahHezbollah, UNIFIL, Locals3 UN soldiers injured; calls for increased UN protection
Jan 2022YarounUNIFIL patrol confronted by Hezbollah operatives demanding withdrawalHezbollah, UNIFILNo injuries; situation deescalated after negotiations
Aug 2023HoulaHezbollah operatives detained UNIFIL personnel temporarily, alleging security breachHezbollah, UNIFILPersonnel released after 3 hours; diplomatic tensions
Sept 2024RachayaHezbollah-affiliated group fired warning shots at UNIFIL droneHezbollah, UNIFILDrone retreated; UN expressed concern over escalation
copyright debuglies.com

Analysis of Rocket Alerts and Geopolitical Dynamics in Previous Conflicts

The rocket alerts and their intensity in past conflicts between Israel and Gaza-based groups provide essential insights into the evolving military and political environment. The data provided highlights several operations with varying scales of rocket fire, illustrating both the tactical evolution of Palestinian factions like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Israel’s military response. Here is a detailed breakdown of the data and the geopolitical framework during each operation.

Rocket alerts in previous conflicts
Name ConflictFrom DateTo DateTotal AlertsAvg/day
Operation Shield and Arrow09/05/202313/05/2023775194
Operation Breaking Dawn05/08/202207/08/2022754377
Operation Guardian of the Walls10/05/202121/05/20217000636
Operation Black Belt12/11/201916/11/2019928232
Operation Protective Edge08/07/201426/08/201412808261
Operation Pillar of Defense14/11/201221/11/20121506215
Operation Cast Lead27/11/200818/01/200957526
copyright debuglies.com

Operation Shield and Arrow (May 2023)

  • Dates: 09/05/2023 to 13/05/2023
  • Total Alerts: 775
  • Avg/Day: 194

Context: This short yet intense conflict arose after Israel targeted senior commanders of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in Gaza. Rocket fire ensued, with most rockets aimed at civilian centers in southern Israel. The relatively high number of daily rocket alerts reflects the group’s growing capacity to launch large volumes of rockets within a short time frame. The operation demonstrated Israel’s precise targeting capabilities through the Iron Dome missile defense system and the Arrow missile defense system, which intercepted most of the rockets.

Geopolitical Significance:

  • Iran’s influence: Palestinian Islamic Jihad has strong ties to Iran, which provides it with funds and weaponry, positioning this operation within the broader Iran-Israel conflict.
  • Regional politics: The conflict attracted the attention of other actors, such as Egypt, which mediated a ceasefire.

Operation Breaking Dawn (August 2022)

  • Dates: 05/08/2022 to 07/08/2022
  • Total Alerts: 754
  • Avg/Day: 377

Context: Another short but sharp conflict, this operation primarily focused on the Palestinian Islamic Jihad after Israel preemptively struck key leaders. The spike in daily alerts reflects the group’s ability to maintain high-intensity rocket attacks in retaliation, although Israel’s Iron Dome system neutralized a significant percentage of the rockets.

Geopolitical Significance:

  • The conflict was mostly localized in Gaza, with limited involvement from Hamas.
  • Regional stability: Similar to Shield and Arrow, Egypt once again played a central role in mediating the ceasefire, ensuring the conflict did not escalate further into a larger regional war.

Operation Guardian of the Walls (May 2021)

  • Dates: 10/05/2021 to 21/05/2021
  • Total Alerts: 7,000
  • Avg/Day: 636

Context: This operation began amid increased tensions in Jerusalem, particularly around the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, which erupted into full-scale conflict after Hamas launched rocket attacks on Israel. The 7,000 rocket alerts during just 11 days illustrate the intensity of this conflict, with Hamas and Islamic Jihad launching the highest number of rockets ever recorded in any Israel-Gaza conflict.

Geopolitical Significance:

  • Widespread protests and violence: The conflict extended beyond Gaza to mixed cities in Israel, where Jewish-Arab tensions boiled over into street violence.
  • International response: Global condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza grew, particularly from the UN, European Union, and Muslim-majority countries. However, Western allies supported Israel’s right to self-defense.
  • Iran: Increased support for Hamas and PIJ highlighted Iran’s expanding influence in Gaza and the West Bank.

Operation Black Belt (November 2019)

  • Dates: 12/11/2019 to 16/11/2019
  • Total Alerts: 928
  • Avg/Day: 232

Context: This operation was sparked after the targeted killing of a senior commander of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Baha Abu al-Ata, in Gaza. This conflict saw Islamic Jihad, rather than Hamas, lead the rocket attacks against Israel. Although relatively short, the number of rockets fired reflects the group’s significant rocket arsenal.

Geopolitical Significance:

  • The conflict underlined the fragmentation of Gaza’s militant landscape, with PIJ acting independently of Hamas.
  • Israeli defense: The operation showcased the effectiveness of the Iron Dome, which intercepted the vast majority of rockets aimed at Israeli population centers.

Operation Protective Edge (July-August 2014)

  • Dates: 08/07/2014 to 26/08/2014
  • Total Alerts: 12,808
  • Avg/Day: 261

Context: One of the most devastating and prolonged conflicts between Israel and Gaza, Operation Protective Edge was triggered by the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas militants. Israel responded with a ground and aerial campaign aimed at dismantling Hamas’ rocket-firing capabilities and the destruction of terror tunnels. This operation resulted in 12,808 rocket alerts, with over 4,500 rockets fired during the conflict.

Geopolitical Significance:

  • High civilian casualties in Gaza led to international condemnation of Israel’s military actions.
  • The conflict intensified divisions between Hamas and Fatah, undermining the possibility of Palestinian unity.
  • Iran’s role: Tehran provided significant backing to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, supplying advanced rockets and financial support.

Operation Pillar of Defense (November 2012)

  • Dates: 14/11/2012 to 21/11/2012
  • Total Alerts: 1,506
  • Avg/Day: 215

Context: Triggered by the assassination of Ahmed Jabari, a top Hamas military commander, Israel launched Operation Pillar of Defense to neutralize the rocket-launching infrastructure in Gaza. Hamas responded by launching a significant number of rockets at Israel, including its first attempt to target Tel Aviv.

Geopolitical Significance:

  • The conflict tested the Iron Dome system on a large scale, which performed effectively and gained international acclaim.
  • Hamas’ reach: This was the first time rockets were fired towards major Israeli urban centers like Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
  • International mediation: Egypt played a crucial role in mediating a ceasefire agreement between the two sides.

Operation Cast Lead (December 2008 – January 2009)

  • Dates: 27/12/2008 to 18/01/2009
  • Total Alerts: 575
  • Avg/Day: 26

Context: Operation Cast Lead was one of the earliest large-scale operations against Hamas, following months of rocket fire from Gaza. It marked the start of Israel’s strategy of preemptive strikes to destroy Hamas’ missile infrastructure and limit their operational capability. The conflict caused significant destruction in Gaza, as Israel targeted rocket factories, launch sites, and tunnels used to smuggle weapons.

Geopolitical Significance:

  • Widespread international criticism of Israel’s actions, particularly regarding the high civilian death toll.
  • Hamas’s operational growth: This was the first indication of Hamas’ ability to launch sustained rocket attacks on southern Israel, revealing the group’s growing military sophistication.

Geopolitical and Operational Trends

The rocket alert data from previous conflicts reveal several trends:

  • Increasing Rocket Capacities: Over time, Palestinian factions—particularly Hamas and Islamic Jihad—have improved their rocket capabilities, launching more rockets per day with greater range and precision. This has expanded the range of cities under threat, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
  • Iran’s Influence: Iran’s role in supplying rockets, funds, and strategic guidance has increased Hamas and PIJ’s capacity to launch sustained and high-intensity attacks on Israel, prolonging conflicts and raising the stakes for Israeli military responses.
  • Iron Dome’s Evolution: Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system has become a cornerstone of its defense strategy, intercepting a majority of rockets aimed at populated areas. Its effectiveness has saved countless lives and limited damage, although it has not prevented the escalation of hostilities.
  • Geopolitical Ramifications: Every conflict has drawn international attention, with varying degrees of criticism or support for Israel’s actions. Egypt’s role as a mediator has been crucial in almost every conflict, highlighting its unique position in regional geopolitics.

The escalating nature of these conflicts underscores the persistent and growing challenges Israel faces in maintaining security and stability against adversaries backed by regional powers like Iran. As technology and military strategies evolve, so too will the dynamics of these conflicts.

Comparison Between Previous Conflicts and the Current Conflict (October 2023 Onward)

The data from past Israeli operations and the current conflict reflect shifts in scale, tactics, and geopolitical dynamics. While rocket alerts during earlier conflicts were significant, the escalation that began on October 7, 2023, surpasses all previous conflicts in terms of intensity and scale. Below is a detailed comparison based on the provided historical data and current trends.

Total Rocket Alerts and Intensity of Conflict

  • Operation Guardian of the Walls (2021):
    • Total Alerts: 7,000
    • Duration: 11 days
    • Average per Day: 636
  • Operation Protective Edge (2014):
    • Total Alerts: 12,808
    • Duration: 50 days
    • Average per Day: 261
  • Current Conflict (October 2023 – Ongoing):
    • Total Alerts from Hamas (as of October 10, 2024): 8,440
    • Total Alerts from Hezbollah: 15,002
    • Duration: 1 year (as of October 2024)
    • Intensity: Daily rocket alerts fluctuate, but the scale and range of these alerts have expanded, with attacks targeting not just southern Israel but also central and northern Israel.

The sheer scale of the attacks in 2023-2024, particularly with Hezbollah’s involvement, marks a significant escalation compared to previous conflicts. Hezbollah has now become a critical second front, with over 15,000 alerts from southern Lebanon, marking an unprecedented level of coordination between Gaza-based militants and Hezbollah.

Evolution of Rocket Technology

In previous conflicts, rocket technology was more rudimentary. Hamas’s rockets were often short-range, only capable of reaching towns in southern Israel such as Sderot and Ashkelon. However, over time, Iran’s involvement has enabled Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah to improve their rocket capabilities significantly.

  • Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009) saw 575 rocket alerts over 22 days, with most attacks targeting southern Israel.
  • By Operation Guardian of the Walls (2021), rockets could reach Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, with over 7,000 alerts recorded in 11 days.

In the current conflict:

  • Hamas and Hezbollah’s missile ranges have extended deeper into Israel, regularly reaching Haifa, Tel Aviv, and even Jerusalem.
  • Hezbollah’s precision-guided missiles, supplied by Iran, have introduced a new level of threat that is far more sophisticated than in previous conflicts. Hezbollah’s involvement has transformed the northern front into a critical vulnerability for Israel.

The Role of Defense Systems: Iron Dome and Beyond

  • In past operations like Pillar of Defense (2012) and Black Belt (2019), the Iron Dome missile defense system proved highly effective, with interception rates above 85%. This capability significantly reduced civilian casualties and damage despite the high volume of rocket fire.
  • In the current conflict, however, the sheer volume of rockets—especially the 15,002 from Hezbollah—has stretched the capacity of the Iron Dome. The Arrow missile defense system and David’s Sling have also been employed to intercept longer-range and more advanced missiles, particularly those from Hezbollah and Iranian proxies like the Houthis in Yemen.

Israel’s defense technology has evolved, but the scale of the threat now requires constant updates to its missile defense strategies. The integration of multi-tiered defense systems reflects the increasing complexity of the threat landscape.

The Geopolitical Context: Iran’s Expanding Role

In earlier conflicts, Iran’s role was less overt, primarily providing funding and basic missile technology to groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. However, the 2023-2024 conflict demonstrates the full extent of Iran’s influence on the battlefield:

  • Hezbollah’s arsenal has grown exponentially thanks to Iranian support, including precision-guided missiles, which have added a new dimension to the threat Israel faces.
  • Houthis in Yemen have also been drawn into the conflict, with 598 rocket alerts originating from Yemen, likely Iranian-backed missile strikes aimed at further destabilizing Israel.

Civilian Impact and Evacuations

One of the major developments in the current conflict has been the evacuation of civilians from northern Israel. In previous conflicts, particularly Operation Protective Edge and Pillar of Defense, rocket attacks primarily targeted southern Israel. However, with Hezbollah’s involvement, residents in the north have had to be evacuated on a massive scale.

  • During Operation Protective Edge, approximately 50,000 residents of southern Israel were temporarily displaced.
  • In October 2023-2024, over hundreds of thousands of Israelis in northern Israel have been evacuated, marking a substantial shift in the scope of the conflict. The Hezbollah front has created dual evacuation zones in both southern and northern Israel, reflecting a broader geographical spread of conflict.

International Reactions and Diplomacy

In previous conflicts, international diplomacy was swift in calling for ceasefires. For instance:

  • Operation Protective Edge ended after 50 days with Egypt’s successful mediation.
  • Guardian of the Walls saw significant pressure from Western powers to halt the conflict, especially as civilian casualties in Gaza mounted.

However, the current conflict presents new challenges:

  • The ongoing threat from Hezbollah, alongside Hamas, complicates ceasefire negotiations, as the conflict has spread beyond Gaza.
  • Iran’s increasing influence makes diplomatic resolutions far more complex, with multiple fronts now involved, including Lebanon and Yemen.
  • The United States continues to call for a ceasefire, particularly focused on the release of hostages captured during Hamas’ October 7th attack. Still, Iran’s proxy involvement complicates direct diplomatic engagement.

The Evolving Nature of Israel’s Security Landscape

The 2023-2024 conflict is unique in the scale, intensity, and geopolitical complexity compared to previous conflicts. With 15,002 alerts from Hezbollah, 8,440 from Hamas, and attacks from Iran-backed Houthis, Israel now faces multi-front warfare. The current escalation marks a new phase in Israel’s long-standing conflict with Palestinian groups and Iranian-backed militias, requiring a comprehensive and evolving military and diplomatic approach to ensure national security.

This situation underscores the fragility of peace in the Middle East, with Iran’s growing influence pushing Israel to the brink of a wider regional war. The lessons from previous conflicts have informed Israel’s strategies, but the current multi-dimensional conflict presents unprecedented challenges that the international community must recognize.


APPENDIX 1- Alerts by day since Oct 7 2023

DateHamas GazaHezbollah (Southern Lebanon)IranHouthis (Yemen)
07/10/20233701300
08/10/20231821
09/10/202324469
10/10/202319145
11/10/2023205197
12/10/202310123
13/10/202315354
14/10/202313658
15/10/20235030
16/10/202311146
17/10/202317459
18/10/20232223
19/10/20237247
20/10/2023773
21/10/2023533
22/10/2023862
23/10/2023323
24/10/202310478
25/10/20234018
26/10/20237659
27/10/20237543
28/10/202310464
29/10/20234227
30/10/20239521
31/10/20234747
01/11/20235910
02/11/20234143
03/11/2023414
04/11/20236914
05/11/20236057
06/11/20232327
07/11/20233641
08/11/2023164
09/11/2023367
10/11/20232033
11/11/20232719
12/11/20231123
13/11/20233439
14/11/20233411
15/11/20231810
16/11/2023112
17/11/20232527
18/11/2023336
19/11/20232034
20/11/202310483
21/11/20233245
22/11/20232210
23/11/20231328
24/11/202343
25/11/202310
26/11/2023
27/11/2023
28/11/2023
29/11/2023
30/11/2023
01/12/202316719
02/12/20239470
03/12/2023452
04/12/20234215
05/12/20235934
06/12/2023326
07/12/202355
08/12/20233555
09/12/2023113
10/12/20231020
11/12/20232317
12/12/20231724
13/12/2023251
14/12/2023147
15/12/20232330
16/12/2023420
17/12/2023101
18/12/2023123
19/12/20234551
20/12/202310
21/12/20239652
22/12/20237
23/12/2023109
24/12/2023715
25/12/2023710
26/12/2023110
27/12/202336
28/12/2023535
29/12/2023465
30/12/202329
31/12/202314
01/01/20245946
02/01/202419
03/01/202426
04/01/202481
05/01/2024139
06/01/20241174
07/01/2024310
08/01/20243633
09/01/20243127
10/01/202411
11/01/2024110
12/01/202462
13/01/202450
14/01/202480
15/01/202463
16/01/2024159
17/01/2024020
18/01/2024102
19/01/202412
20/01/2024019
21/01/202440
22/01/202401
23/01/2024012
24/01/202403
25/01/202410
26/01/2024610
27/01/2024018
28/01/2024712
29/01/20243716
30/01/202411
31/01/202402
01/02/202406
02/02/202408
03/02/202421
04/02/2024033
05/02/202416
06/02/2024010
07/02/202400
08/02/2024122
09/02/2024026
10/02/2024028
11/02/202401
12/02/202411
13/02/202410
14/02/2024228
15/02/2024026
16/02/202429
17/02/202440
18/02/202400
19/02/2024330
20/02/202401
21/02/2024011
22/02/2024210
23/02/2024032
24/02/2024146
25/02/2024037
26/02/2024219
27/02/2024533
28/02/2024326
29/02/2024311
01/03/202424
02/03/202420
03/03/2024110
04/03/2024055
05/03/2024027
06/03/202400
07/03/202418
08/03/202409
09/03/2024014
10/03/2024054
11/03/2024025
12/03/2024022
13/03/202454
14/03/202411
15/03/2024015
16/03/202411
17/03/202405
18/03/2024111
19/03/202403
20/03/202409
21/03/2024022
22/03/2024045
23/03/2024028
24/03/2024225
25/03/2024820
26/03/202401
27/03/2024114
28/03/2024024
29/03/2024025
30/03/2024021
31/03/2024013
01/04/2024029
02/04/2024014
03/04/2024254
04/04/2024133
05/04/2024040
06/04/2024031
07/04/2024513
08/04/2024035
09/04/2024113
10/04/2024016
11/04/202400
12/04/2024029
13/04/2024037
14/04/2024010688
15/04/2024012
16/04/2024129
17/04/2024011
18/04/2024332
19/04/202409
20/04/2024155
21/04/2024022
22/04/2024040
23/04/2024232
24/04/2024214
25/04/2024011
26/04/202400
27/04/2024030
28/04/202405
29/04/2024027
30/04/202402
01/05/202407
02/05/202400
03/05/202405
04/05/202400
05/05/2024125
06/05/2024455
07/05/2024878
08/05/2024247
09/05/2024050
10/05/20241620
11/05/2024249
12/05/2024813
13/05/2024531
14/05/2024510
15/05/2024124
16/05/20245148
17/05/20245126
18/05/20243111
19/05/2024473
20/05/2024220
21/05/2024221
22/05/202409
23/05/20246161
24/05/2024174
25/05/2024026
26/05/2024378
27/05/2024249
28/05/2024220
29/05/2024029
30/05/2024152
31/05/2024139
01/06/2024077
02/06/20240120
03/06/2024066
04/06/2024047
05/06/2024148
06/06/2024529
07/06/2024241
08/06/2024525
09/06/2024368
10/06/2024391
11/06/2024250
12/06/20242153
13/06/20248259
14/06/2024132
15/06/202479
16/06/202409
17/06/202430
18/06/2024446
19/06/20241033
20/06/202418
21/06/202429
22/06/202411
23/06/2024135
24/06/2024135
25/06/2024313
26/06/2024310
27/06/2024231
28/06/2024169
29/06/202404
30/06/2024313
01/07/20241022
02/07/2024112
03/07/2024235
04/07/20242218
05/07/202418
06/07/2024420
07/07/2024054
08/07/2024217
09/07/2024314
10/07/2024012
11/07/2024742
12/07/202415
13/07/2024018
14/07/2024134
15/07/2024130
16/07/2024253
17/07/202418
18/07/2024314
19/07/2024036
20/07/2024336
21/07/2024048
22/07/2024436
23/07/2024355
24/07/202417
25/07/2024269
26/07/2024107
27/07/2024067
28/07/202411
29/07/2024016
30/07/2024055
31/07/202402
01/08/2024017
02/08/202496
03/08/202416
04/08/2024621
05/08/2024547
06/08/2024380
07/08/2024115
08/08/2024010
09/08/2024420
10/08/2024164
11/08/202402
12/08/202419
13/08/2024025
14/08/2024115
15/08/2024352
16/08/2024118
17/08/2024013
18/08/2024126
19/08/2024033
20/08/2024071
21/08/2024073
22/08/2024212
23/08/2024055
24/08/202409
25/08/20242178
26/08/2024146
27/08/2024021
28/08/202409
29/08/2024111
30/08/2024013
31/08/2024023
01/09/2024025
02/09/2024022
03/09/2024028
04/09/2024147
05/09/2024132
06/09/202405
07/09/2024024
08/09/2024243
09/09/2024247
10/09/2024037
11/09/2024211
12/09/2024122
13/09/2024036
14/09/2024356
15/09/2024042113
16/09/2024022
17/09/2024028
18/09/2024056
19/09/2024041
20/09/2024088
21/09/2024054
22/09/20240396
23/09/20240380
24/09/20240401
25/09/20241177
26/09/2024176122
27/09/2024083140
28/09/20240777
29/09/20240213
30/09/2024067
01/10/202402511860
02/10/20240195
03/10/20241177
04/10/20242231
05/10/20242175
06/10/20244188
07/10/202422282223
08/10/20245159
09/10/20242214
10/10/20240126
copyright debuglies.com

APPENDIX 2 – Total alerts since October 7 – 2023

From DateTo DateN. Alerts
07/10/202320/10/20236607
21/10/202303/11/20231367
04/11/202317/11/2023761
18/11/202301/12/2023658
02/12/202315/12/2023747
16/12/202329/12/2023525
30/12/202312/01/2024596
13/01/202426/01/2024143
27/01/202409/02/2024215
10/02/202423/02/2024195
24/02/202408/03/2024308
09/03/202422/03/2024244
23/03/202405/04/2024364
06/04/202419/04/2024979
20/04/202404/05/2024263
05/05/202418/05/2024876
18/05/202401/06/2024760
15/06/202402/06/20241112
16/06/202429/06/2024328
13/07/202430/06/2024537
14/04/202427/07/2024540
28/07/202410/08/2024400
11/08/202424/08/2024433
25/08/202407/09/2024499
08/09/202421/09/2024707
22/09/202405/10/20245737
06/10/202410/06/20241261
TOTAL27162
copyright debuglies.com

APPENDIX 3 – UAV alerts since October 7 – 2023

From DateTo DateN. Alerts
07/10/202320/10/2023210
21/10/202303/11/20235
04/11/202317/11/202355
18/11/202301/12/202377
02/12/202315/12/202344
16/12/202329/12/2023155
30/12/202312/01/2024258
13/01/202426/01/202435
27/01/202409/02/202451
10/02/202423/02/202490
24/02/202408/03/202495
09/03/202422/03/202489
23/03/202405/04/2024177
06/04/202419/04/2024128
20/04/202404/05/2024164
05/05/202418/05/2024612
18/05/202401/06/2024515
15/06/202402/06/2024695
16/06/202429/06/2024155
13/07/202430/06/2024234
14/04/202427/07/2024204
28/07/202410/08/2024172
11/08/202424/08/2024183
25/08/202407/09/2024195
08/09/202421/09/2024176
22/09/202405/10/2024229
06/10/202410/06/202463
TOTAL5066
copyright debuglies.com

Copyright of debuglies.com
Even partial reproduction of the contents is not permitted without prior authorization – Reproduction reserved

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Questo sito usa Akismet per ridurre lo spam. Scopri come i tuoi dati vengono elaborati.