Hezbollah Is Using UNIFIL to Deliver Political Messages

A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)
A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)
TT

Hezbollah Is Using UNIFIL to Deliver Political Messages

A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)
A UNIFIL patrol near the village of Mais al-Jabal, along the southern Lebanese border with Israel on August 26, 2020. (AFP)

The repeated attacks against the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) are political messages from Hezbollah and Iran to the UN and international community.

Three attacks against the peacekeeping force were reported in one month alone. Never have there been this many attacks against the international troops in the space of one month. The attacks took place amid international calls that the Iran-backed Hezbollah party lay down its arms and for Lebanon to implement UN Security Council resolution 1701 and 1559.

UNIFIL has, meanwhile, taken a firmer stance against these assaults, more so than it has ever done before. In a sharp tone, it demanded that the perpetrator be held to account, calling on the Lebanese authorities to carry out a probe. This marked a shift in its tone as UNIFIL usually used to announce an investigation in such attacks and that it was coordinating with the Lebanese military.

Resolution 1701 was issued in August 2006 to end the Israeli war on Lebanon. It gave UNIFIL the jurisdiction to carry out the necessary security measures in areas where it is deployed in southern Lebanon. Among other points, the resolution demands that areas of UNIFIL's deployment are not used for hostile attacks of any kind. The resolution provides protection for UN facilities and employees, guarantees their freedom of movement in humanitarian work and protects civilians, while respecting the role of the Lebanese government.

The resolution effectively expanded the role of UNIFIL, which was first formed and deployed in Lebanon in 1978. Since then, the UN troops have been deploying at least 400 patrols a day. The troops have rarely come under attack and when they do, they usually happen before their mandate is extended in August of every year.

Political and field changes must have happened for three attacks to take place against UNIFIL in one month. In November alone, three assaults were reported against the troops. One attack was reported in the town of Shakra on December 24, another in the town of Ramia on December 25 and the third in Bint Jbeil on January 3. Often, "locals" are blamed for attacking UNIFIL.

'Locals' and Hezbollah
Lebanese academic and political researcher Dr. Mona Fayad rejects accusations that "locals" are behind these attacks. In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, she said that such excuses are "not fooling anyone." Rather, she said Hezbollah, which is "hiding behind the people", should be held responsible.

She said the party has managed over time to establish an authority that is independent of the Lebanese state. One of the ways it managed to reach this position is its assuming of the role of "speaking on behalf of the resistance community and labeling as 'locals' people, especially Shiites, whom it mobilizes whenever the party needs them to exert pressure on a certain side. That way the party avoids direct confrontation."

Political motives
The frequency of the recent attacks has raised questions over their motives and political messages to the international mission. UNIFIL was firm in demanding a probe into the attacks, rejecting attempts aimed at restricting its freedom of movement in the South.

Fayad noted the latest attack when a routine UNIFIL patrol was assaulted even though it did not veer off its main route. Past attacks have been blamed on patrols changing their routes without coordinating with the Lebanese army or on troops taking photos in specific locations.

Fayad said the latest attacks are taking place at a time when the residents of the South feel that they need UN troops given the security and peace they have established in the area since the implementation of resolution 1701. Prior to that, they had never experienced such peace and calm, she added. At a time of upheaval in the rest of the country in recent years, the South has enjoyed relative calm, with the assassination of Shiite dissident Loqman Slim last year as the only major incident. He was killed in the South, in an area that is filled with surveillance cameras and where Hezbollah must be very familiar with.

Hezbollah, continued Fayad, has exploited the "army, resistance and people" slogan to exert pressure on various sides, while still avoiding turning attention to it. Indeed, Hezbollah is not mentioned when attacks on UNIFIL are reported, but rather the "locals" are the ones being blamed. The party uses such tactics to give the impression that it is implementing resolution 1701.

Change in UNIFIL's tone
After the latest attack on January 25, UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said the peacekeepers were not trespassing on private property, but were passing through a routine route. They were carrying out their duties according to resolution 1701 to preserve stability in the South.

He stressed that the resolution grants the troops complete freedom of movement and the right to deploy patrols in their area of operations. The attacks against the men and women who are serving peace are deemed as crimes by Lebanese and international laws.

The Lebanese authorities must probe these crimes and put the perpetrators on trial, he demanded.

Tenenti's statements mark a shift in tone. Fayad said the peacekeepers will no longer accept the excuse that the attacks were sparked by them changing their patrol route or that they were taking photos.

The change in the spokesperson's tone is a sign that the confrontation is growing because the UN mission senses a shift in the equation and an opportunity for it to play a better role, she explained.

Furthermore, Fayad said these changes "are not restricted to Lebanon alone," but they are tied to the Vienna nuclear talks with Iran.

International messages
Political researcher and retired Gen. of Staff Khaled Hamade said the timing of the attacks are more significant than the assaults themselves.

There is no doubt that Hezbollah is behind the attacks, which are tied to regional developments, Hamade told Asharq Al-Awsat. The developments point to significant changes on the ground in the region.

Iran is seeking to use its regional cards in response to its setbacks in the region, he explained. Iran, not Hezbollah, should be blamed for the attacks on UNIFIL because the party is an extension of Tehran in Lebanon.

Iran is seeking to "shuffle all regional cards," said Hamade. He cited the developments in Iraq that is stumbling in forming a new government. He also noted the attempt on the life of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi. He pointed to the repeated rocket attacks on the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia by the Iran-backed Houthi militias in Yemen.

These are all signs of Iran's reactions in regions where it wields influence, stressed Hamade. Moreover, the attack carried out by ISIS against Gweiran prison in northeastern Syria is "one of the cards Iran is using to exert pressure in the region." Lebanon is another one of Iran's cards and it is using UNIFIL to deliver messages.

Hamade said Tehran is using all the cards at its disposal in reaction to the setbacks it has suffered. In Lebanon, Hezbollah does Iran's bidding by attacking UNIFIL.

By attacking UNIFIL, Iran is saying that it can obstruct the implementation of resolution 1701, explained Hamade. Lebanon is helpless in responding to or thwarting such a violation, so the government often takes a very vague stance that does nothing in affecting the situation on the ground.

UN cover
Meanwhile, fears have been growing in the South that the attacks would force UNIFIL to pull out of Lebanon, which would cost the country one of its last remaining international covers as it grapples with an unprecedented economic crisis.

Hamade eased these concerns, saying the peacekeeping force will remain. The attacks will not force UNIFIL to withdraw, but the repeated incidents will prompt international reactions, perhaps even a Security Council meeting.

"The Council will not be extorted and will not allow the obstruction of an international resolution," he stated. "Furthermore, Hezbollah itself does not want the UN troops to withdraw because it will lose a precious card in its extortion."

Another factor is Israel, said Hamade. It wants an international force deployed in the South because it ensures its security. Iran itself also wants UNIFIL to stay so that it can continue on delivering its messages.

Hezbollah wants the troops to remain so that it can keep its attention focused on internal Lebanese affairs, added Hamade. It will continue to abide by resolution 1701, implementing it "with an Iranian twist and a way that serves its interests."



How Israel’s Multi-Ton Truck Bombs Ripped Through Gaza City

Destroyed buildings after Israeli military operations in Gaza City, November 12, 2025. (Reuters)
Destroyed buildings after Israeli military operations in Gaza City, November 12, 2025. (Reuters)
TT

How Israel’s Multi-Ton Truck Bombs Ripped Through Gaza City

Destroyed buildings after Israeli military operations in Gaza City, November 12, 2025. (Reuters)
Destroyed buildings after Israeli military operations in Gaza City, November 12, 2025. (Reuters)

In the weeks before the Gaza ceasefire on October 10, Israel widely deployed a new weapon: M113 Armored Personnel Carriers repurposed to carry between 1 and 3 tons of explosives, Reuters found.

As Israeli troops pushed toward the center of Gaza City, these powerful bombs, along with airstrikes and armor-plated bulldozers, leveled swathes of buildings, drone footage and satellite images show.

In most cases, but not all, the inhabitants fled ahead of demolitions after Israeli warnings, residents, Israeli security sources and Gaza authorities said.

Hesham Mohammad Badawi’s five-storey home on Dawla Street in the affluent Tel-al-Hawa suburb, damaged by an airstrike earlier in the war, was completely destroyed by an APC explosion on September 14, he and a relative said, leaving him and 41 family members homeless.

Badawi, who was a few hundred meters away, said he heard at least five APCs detonate in roughly five-minute intervals. He said he received no ​evacuation warning before the demolition and family members escaped “by a miracle” amid explosions and heavy gunfire.

Several buildings in the same block were demolished around that time, satellite images show.

The family is now staying with relatives in different parts of the city, Badawi said, while he lives in a tent by his former home. Israel’s military did not respond to Reuters questions about the incident. Reuters could not establish what Israel targeted in the attack or independently verify all the details of Badawi’s account of the events.

When Reuters visited in November, remains of at least one of the vehicles were strewn among large piles of rubble.

"We could not believe this was our neighborhood, this was our street," Badawi said.

To compile a detailed account of the role of APC-based bombs by the Israeli military in Tel-al-Hawa and the neighboring Sabra district in the six weeks before the ceasefire, Reuters spoke to three Israeli security sources, a retired Israeli military brigadier, an Israeli reservist, Gazan authorities and three military experts.

Seven Gaza City residents said their homes or those of neighbors were levelled or severely damaged by the explosions, which several likened to an earthquake. Analysis of Reuters footage by two of the military experts confirmed wreckage of at least two exploded APCs among the rubble at sites in Gaza City.

Israel packed 1 to 3 tons of ordnance in APCs, three military experts estimated, based on cabin space and wreckage of vehicle armor. Some of the ordnance was likely non–military ammonium nitrate or emulsion, though without chemical testing that conclusion is not certain, they said.

Such a multi-ton explosion could approach an equivalent power to Israel’s largest airborne bombs, the 2,000-pound US-made Mark 84, said two experts, who examined Reuters footage of the blast area and vehicle remains.

It could scatter vehicle fragments hundreds of meters and break close-by exterior walls and building columns. The blast wave would be strong enough to potentially collapse a multi-storey building, they said.

HIGHLY UNUSUAL

APCs generally transport troops and equipment on the battlefield. The three military experts ‌consulted by Reuters said use of ‌the vehicles as bombs was highly unusual and risked excessive damage to civilian dwellings.

In response to detailed Reuters questions for this story, Israel’s military said it was committed to the rules of war. Regarding ‌allegations of ⁠destruction of civilian ​infrastructure, it said it used ‌what it called engineering equipment only for “essential operational purposes,” without disclosing further details.

Decisions are guided by military necessity, distinction, and proportionality, it said.

In an interview with Reuters in Gaza for this story, Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said Israel’s demolitions with armored vehicles were aimed at the large-scale displacement of the city's residents, which Israel has denied.

The reporting provides new evidence of the power of these low-tech weapons and how they came to be widely used.

Retired reservist Brigadier-General Amir Avivi, founder of the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF), a think tank, called the weapon an “innovation of the Gaza War.” One of the security sources said its increasing use partly responded to US restrictions on transfers of heavy Mark-84 airborne bombs and Caterpillar bulldozers.

Israel’s military and Prime Minister’s Office also did not respond to questions about the reasons for the shift in tactics. The US State Department, White House and Department of War did not respond to Reuters questions for this story.

Before the war, Tel-al-Hawa and Sabra, a historic area of modest houses in south-central Gaza City, bustled with bakeries, shopping malls, mosques, banks and universities.

Now, large parts lie in ruins.

Satellite imagery analysis by Reuters showed that about 650 buildings in Sabra, Tel-al-Hawa and surrounding areas were destroyed in the six weeks between September 1 and October 11.

MILITARY NECESSITY?

Two international law scholars, the UN human rights office and two of the military experts who reviewed Reuters findings said use of such large explosives in dense residential urban areas may have failed one or more principles of humanitarian law that prohibit attacking civilian infrastructure and using disproportionate force.

"The basis that some of it may be booby-trapped" or once used by Hamas snipers is not enough to justify mass destruction, Ajith Sunghay, head of the UN Human Rights Office in ⁠the Occupied Palestinian Territory, told Reuters, referring to Israel’s allegation that Hamas placed improvised explosive devices in houses, which Hamas denies.

In some circumstances, buildings could lose legal protection and become targets if Israel had evidence Hamas used them for military advantage, said Afonso Seixas Nunes, Associate Professor in the School of Law at Saint Louis University.

Israel’s military did not respond to Reuters requests to provide such evidence.

If not the result of military necessity, the ‌demolition of civilian infrastructure could amount to wanton destruction of property, which is a war crime, Sunghay said.

The level of ruin reflects a broader trend: 81% of Gaza’s buildings suffered damage or destruction ‍during the war, according to the UN Satellite Center. The area including Gaza City experienced most damage since July, with approximately 5,600 newly affected structures, it said ‍in October.

In August, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters Israel was packing tons of explosives into APCs because Hamas had placed explosive devices in “just about every single building” in evacuated areas.

"We detonate them, and they set off all the booby traps. That's why you see the destruction," Netanyahu said.

In response ‍to questions for this story, Qassem, the Hamas spokesman, denied booby trapping buildings, and said Hamas did not have the capacity to set devices at the scale Israel claimed.

FORCES ENTER GAZA CITY

Later in August, Israeli forces entered Gaza City with the declared aim of eliminating Hamas and freeing hostages held by fighters since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that triggered the war.

Israel ordered a full evacuation of the city in September.

As troops advanced, backed by tanks and airstrikes, they extensively damaged eastern suburbs before approaching central areas of the city, where most displaced people were sheltering.

Hundreds of thousands fled south. The UN estimated 600,000-700,000 people remained in the city.

Israel’s defense minister has said soldiers demolished 25 towers that Israel said had Hamas tunnels underneath or were used as lookout points. The UN human rights office says Israel has provided no evidence the buildings were military targets.

Among the destruction visible in Sabra, Tel-al-Hawa and South Rimal between September 1 and October 11, Reuters identified al-Roya tower, which housed the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, a prominent human rights office that worked with charity Christian ​Aid, and al-Roya 2, a mixture of business and flats, brought down by airstrikes on September 7 and 8.

Two wings of the Islamic University of Gaza and a mosque on the campus were destroyed. In one six-block corner of Tel-al-Hawa almost every building was demolished - more than 60 in total.

Beyond the two cases of APC explosions analyzed in detail for this story, and airstrikes on towers caught on video, Reuters could not establish what weapons Israel deployed to demolish buildings, or the total number of APCs detonated ⁠from August until the ceasefire.

Gaza’s Civil Defense spokesperson Mahmoud Basal said the army detonated hundreds of APCs in that period, as many as 20 daily. Israel’s military did not reply to a question on numbers.

BADAWI’S HOUSE

Among the buildings destroyed was Badawi’s family home of four decades, along with more than 20 neighboring buildings in the same period.

"We didn’t recognize this as our house," he said.

Two military experts said Reuters footage of the area showed remains of at least one detonated APC.

The explosion had torn one APC caterpillar track from its running gear and “physically thrown it onto the roof” of a multi-storey building, a retired senior British military bomb disposal officer said, noting that M113 tracks each weigh hundreds of kilograms.

A thick, ripped piece of metal and a wheel torn in half, both scattered at the property, were consistent with a detonation from within the APC, said Gareth Collett, a retired British Brigadier General and leading authority on explosives and bomb disposal. He said the large size of the fragments was indicative of a commercial low energy explosive.

THE RETURN OF THE M113

Bought from the US after the Yom Kippur War in the 1970s, thousands of M113s were deemed to insufficiently protect soldiers and were mothballed, military historian Yagil Henkin said.

FMC Corp, originally the M113’s primary manufacturer, did not respond to Reuters’ requests for comment about its use as a weapon and potential associated human rights concerns.

BAE Systems, which currently provides maintenance for the vehicle globally, did not reply to Reuters questions about Israel's new use of the M113 other than to say it currently had no direct military sales to the country. It said equipment it sold to the US government could reach other countries indirectly.

In May, Israel posted a public tender seeking to sell an unspecified number of M113s internationally, public documents show.

The tender was later cancelled, according to an undated posting on the Ministry of Defense website. The cancellation allowed Israel to scale up repurposing M113s, one of the security sources told Reuters. The military did not respond to Reuters’ questions about the tender.

The first media reports of an APC detonating in Gaza date to mid-2024.

Use accelerated this year when Israel rationed stocks after the US paused deliveries of Mark-84 bombs over concerns about the bombs use in residential areas, the source said.

CATERPILLAR D9

The increased role of APC-based bombs also coincided with shortages in Israel of US company Caterpillar's giant D9 bulldozer, long used by Israel’s military for demolition, one of the security sources said.

Hamas heavily targeted D9s earlier in the war, killing or injuring soldiers and damaging the vehicles, the source said. Alarmed by their use to demolish homes, the US paused D9 sales to Israel in November 2024, adding to the shortage. Under President Donald Trump, D9 transfers resumed.

Caterpillar did not respond to questions from Reuters about the military ‌use of its machines in Gaza demolitions and has not publicly commented on the matter.

Amid the shortages, the military began using other methods of demolition, including APCs, another of the security sources said.

Danny Orbach, an Israeli military historian, told Reuters demolitions were normal in war, made necessary in Gaza due to tunnels and booby traps. He said Israel’s military was underprepared for the complex fighting, leading to the conclusion there was “no other way to fight such a war except destroying all buildings above ground.”

Israel's military told Reuters targets were reviewed prior to attack and the munition selected “to achieve the military objective while minimizing collateral damage” to civilians and civilian infrastructure.


What to Know about China's Drills around Taiwan

A rocket launches from Pingtan island in eastern China's Fujian province, the closest point to Taiwan. ADEK BERRY / AFP
A rocket launches from Pingtan island in eastern China's Fujian province, the closest point to Taiwan. ADEK BERRY / AFP
TT

What to Know about China's Drills around Taiwan

A rocket launches from Pingtan island in eastern China's Fujian province, the closest point to Taiwan. ADEK BERRY / AFP
A rocket launches from Pingtan island in eastern China's Fujian province, the closest point to Taiwan. ADEK BERRY / AFP

China's military drills around Taiwan entered their second day on Tuesday, the sixth major maneuvers Beijing has held near the self-ruled island in recent years.

AFP breaks down what we know about the drills:

What are the drills about?

The ultimate cause is China's claim that Taiwan is part of its territory, an assertion Taipei rejects.

The two have been governed separately since the end of a civil war in 1949 saw Communist fighters take over most of China and their Nationalist enemies flee to Taiwan.

Beijing has refused to rule out using force to achieve its goal of "reunification" with the island of 23 million people.

It opposes countries having official ties with Taiwan and denounces any calls for independence.

China vowed "forceful measures" after Taipei said this month that its main security backer, the United States, had approved an $11 billion arms sale to the island.

After the drills began on Monday, Beijing warned "external forces" against arming the island, but did not name Washington.

China also recently rebuked Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi after she said the use of force against Taiwan could warrant a military response from Tokyo.

What do the drills look like?

Chinese authorities have published a map showing several large zones encircling Taiwan where the operations are taking place.

Code-named "Justice Mission 2025", they use live ammunition and involve army, navy, air and rocket forces.

They simulate a blockade of key Taiwanese ports including Keelung in the north and Kaohsiung in the south, according to a Chinese military spokesperson and state media.

They also focus on combat readiness patrols on sea and in the air, seizing "comprehensive" control over adversaries, and deterring aggression beyond the Taiwanese island chain.

China says it has deployed destroyers, frigates, fighters and bombers to simulate strikes and assaults on maritime targets.

Taipei detected 130 Chinese military aircraft near the island in the 24 hours to 6:00 am on Tuesday (2200 GMT on Monday), close to the record 153 it logged in October 2024.

It also detected 14 Chinese navy ships and eight unspecified government vessels over the same period.

AFP journalists stationed at China's closest point to Taiwan saw at least 10 rockets blast into the air on Tuesday morning.

How has Taiwan responded?

Taipei has condemned China's "disregard for international norms and the use of military intimidation".

Its military said it has deployed "appropriate forces" and "carried out a rapid response exercise".

President Lai Ching-te said China's drills were "absolutely not the actions a responsible major power should take".

But he said Taipei would "act responsibly, without escalating the conflict or provoking disputes".

US President Donald Trump has said he is not concerned about the drills.

How common are the drills?

This is China's sixth major round of maneuvers since 2022 when a visit to Taiwan by then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi enraged Beijing.

Such activities were rare before that but China and Taiwan have come close to war over the years, notably in 1958.

China last held large-scale live-fire drills in April, surprise maneuvers that Taipei condemned.

This time, Beijing is emphasizing "keeping foreign forces that might intervene at a distance from Taiwan", said Chieh Chung, a military expert at the island's Tamkang University.

What are analysts saying?

"China's main message is a warning to the United States and Japan not to attempt to intervene if the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) uses force against Taiwan," Chieh told AFP.

But the time frame signaled by Beijing "suggests a limited range of activities", said Ja Ian Chong, an associate professor at the National University of Singapore.

Falling support for China-friendly parties in Taiwan and Beijing's own army purges and slowing economy may also have motivated the drills, he said.

But the goal was still "to cow Taiwan and any others who might support them by demonstrating that Beijing's efforts to control Taiwan are unstoppable".


Why Do the Houthis in Yemen View Israel's Recognition of Somaliland as a Direct Threat?

People gather in front of a digital billboard featuring Houthi leader Abdulmalik al-Houthi, in Sanaa, Yemen, 28 December 2025. (EPA)
People gather in front of a digital billboard featuring Houthi leader Abdulmalik al-Houthi, in Sanaa, Yemen, 28 December 2025. (EPA)
TT

Why Do the Houthis in Yemen View Israel's Recognition of Somaliland as a Direct Threat?

People gather in front of a digital billboard featuring Houthi leader Abdulmalik al-Houthi, in Sanaa, Yemen, 28 December 2025. (EPA)
People gather in front of a digital billboard featuring Houthi leader Abdulmalik al-Houthi, in Sanaa, Yemen, 28 December 2025. (EPA)

The Iran-backed Houthi militias in Yemen view Israel's recognition of Somaliland as direct threat, warning that any Israeli presence in the separatist region will be considered a military target.

Somaliland declared independence from Somalia in 1991. The region has operated autonomously since then and possesses its own currency, army and police force.

Diplomatic isolation has been the norm -- until Israel's move to recognize it as a sovereign nation, which has been criticized by the African Union, Egypt, the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council and the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

The European Union has insisted Somalia's sovereignty should be respected.

Houthi leader Abdelmalik al-Houthi said Israel's move was an "act of aggression on Somalia, Yemen and the security of the region."

In a statement, he added that Tel Aviv was seeking to establish "a military and intelligence foothold" in one of the world's most important waterways. He also warned that any Israeli presence in the region will be deemed a "legitimate target" for the Houthis.

Somaliland is strategically located at the entrance of the Gulf of Aden and close to the Mandeb Strait. It is one of the world's busiest waterways.

Analysts said that Israel's recognition gives it a direct outlet to the Red Sea, boosts its ability to monitor waterways and perhaps allows it to carry out military or intelligence strikes against its rivals, notably the Houthis in Yemen.

Since October 7, 2023, the Houthis had launched rocket and drone attacks against Israel and targeted ships affiliated with it in marine shipping lanes. Israel retaliated by carrying out attacks against Houthi targets in Yemen. The attacks by both sides ended with the announcement of the ceasefire in Gaza.

Political sources said the Houthis are alarmed at the prospect of Israel having a presence in Somaliland. In their view, this will lead to them being surrounded from the southwest. They also fear that Somaliland will be used as a platform for Israeli attacks against them in Yemen.