Yossi Klein Halevi writes in the New Republic (Hat tip to Allison Kaplan Sommer at An Unsealed Room.):

This is a nation whose heart has been broken: by our failure to uproot the jihadist threat, which will return for another and far more deadly round; by the economic devastation of the Galilee and of a neighboring land we didn’t want to attack; by the heroism of our soldiers and the hesitations of our politicians; by the young men buried and crippled in a war we prevented ourselves from winning; by foreign journalists who can’t tell the difference between good and evil; by European leaders who equate an army that tries to avoid civilian causalities with a terrorist group that revels in them; by a United Nations that questions Israel’s right to defend itself; and by growing voices on the left who question Israel’s right to exist at all.

He expresses it perfectly. It seems the ocean of enemies around that tiny country, smaller than Vancouver Island in Canada, has made Israel’s landmass become ever more constricted after this war.

It’s not as if the Israelis didn’t know what needed to be done to win this thing, but they ended up watching as their leadership failed them. Whether it is a general responsible for the supply line absolving himself of blame for poorly equipped reservists short of food at the front; a Chief of Staff who believed an air campaign could do the job of winning against a guerrilla army; a Prime Minister and Defense Minister who held back the full force of their military; or an army apparatus that cannot explain to hostile reporters why this or that target was bombed, ultimately it seems clear that the people Israelis had trusted failed them.

At the same time what has truly made this island feel that it is remote from the world were the reactions of the UN, the head of the UN, numerous countries around the world and yes (!!) the media with its bias, its doctored and staged images, its incomplete reports, its double standards and misinformation. You can just imagine the jaws of Israelis dropping as they heard their country described unfairly and in the most unfortunate terms.

It has become Israel’s reality that they cannot have a just war in the eyes of the world. Sure, lip service is paid to the fact that Hizbullah launched this war and uses civilians as shields, but mostly this became the war of “Israel fights by killing children and civilians” in the narrative constructed by the media, diplomats, politicians and, of course, many of the Left and even some in the Center. At a time when 8500 sorties and over 5000 targets were hit by the IDF, 800 dead (who knows how many of these are Hizbullah men, since according to the Lebanese they are all “civilians”) became a watchword for some form of maniacal genocidal intent by Israel.

Never mind that the Israelis could have killed 30 or 40 times as many people or truly destroyed the Lebanese infrastructure. Never mind that Israel risked the lives of its soldiers because many civilians in S. Lebanon did not evacuate and the IDF didn’t want to blow them up. Never mind that they sent in warnings into numerous neighborhoods, villages and towns warning residents in danger to leave, even at risk to their own war effort and soldiers. Never mind that Israel’s PM held his army back from launching the full scale ground attack that was needed until the second last day of the war. Nope, none of these things matter to the world at large. Israel is the villain in their eyes.

To say that all of these things have come to represent a bitter disappointment would be an understatement.

I will say this, however: while Israel and its supporters may be feeling what Klein Halevi writes above, it is those who attacked Israel who should be looking deeply inward. Those CNN, BBC, Reuters, AP and other reporters should ask themselves whether they are being professional and honest. Those UN diplomats should ask themselves what the proper response to incursion by an enemy of a Blue Line border should be. The head of the UN should resign for his deeply ingrained and shameful bias. The politicians around the world who vilified Israel to further their own careers should ask themselves how they would have fought such an enemy and responded to such attacks. Those on the Left, particularly those closer to the Center, should address the question of why their kneejerk reaction is one where Israel is automatically the party at fault or the party who has misbehaved.

Mistakes were made in this war by Israel, and even ones that cannot be excused so readily. That is a far cry, however, from the manner in which Israel has been depicted. While Israelis and their supporters should and will do some soul-searching, those others I mention above should also do some deep soul-searching.

About the author

themiddle

20 Comments

  • Yes it is ever thus. But this is the not the first time the IDF went up against a guerilla foe in Lebanon and then drew a draw. (The first time they voluntarily let the foe leave in ’82). I think the IDF did about the best they could given the conditions that they faced. Were mistakes made? Hell yes. The propaganda angle here is key, and it’s about time some one recognized it. But Hez had 6 years to prepare the battlefield in a manner of their liking and probably to an extent just not possible almost anyplace else today except Chechnya. What Olmert did was try mightily to avoid a Stalingrad like defensive battle, and he more or less succeeded, at some unknown great moral costs, but Relatively a much lower loss of IDF troops. That was their calculation. It was a 3 bumper shot, but they achieved all that they were going to achieve given the circumstances. Will Hez climb right up on the ruble and claim victory? You betcha. Ditto for their suppliers & trainers in Syria & Iran. We know them again for what they are: Supporters of a terrorist state. But now Israel can again claim the moral high ground. ‘Why you’ve not disarmed Hez, so we can not trust anything you have say about X, Y, Z’ or ‘sure we still occupy lands, but not all Security Resolutions seem to be the same, eh?’

    Now this may seem like no damn consolation at all, but a united nation fighting for what it believes is right is a stronger nation, and one that’s much harder to defeat and easier to defend there and abroad.

    So yes, the new 3& 4th generation of guerilla warfare is tough to suppress let alone beat, and no one’s done this in a months time. The US is still fighting the Taliban we ‘defeated’ 4 years ago, and in Iraq, Iran is eating our lunch and owns much of the southern third of the country. And we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and study it more than almost anyplace on earth, expect perhaps Israel & the UK. Defeating an indigenous guerilla movement is hard to do, typically takes decades to ‘do’ successfully, and there are powerfully few examples in modern history of this happening ‘well’ or quickly.

    We can not expect miracles from just force of arms. We need more. We need diplomatic pressure, new dialogs with the hated Europeans and more. If Israel is to be considered a ‘front line’ state in the ‘new’ (I know, Don’t laugh!) world wide battle against Islamo-Fascism/Terror, it needs better PR, a much better diplomatic corps in addition to better tactics, training and Intell for the IDF.

    You don’t learn valuable lessons from easy victories. The terror weapons used for 80% of Hez’s attacks are essentially 50 year old Soviet copies of the original design for the battlefield rockets. Iran & N. Korea have newer and far deadlier versions they are eager to sell. We need to figure out how to effectively counter these weapons while they are still relatively ineffective terror weapons, and not battlefield tested systems that could actually cause tremendous harm. There is currently no way to do this with these short range rockets, which is why sheltering civilians is the best option short of denial of the launch area to these forces. There could also be better tank protection measures too, but even in Iraq, our best M-1’s are falling to simple but large IED’s and similar traps. It’s a very difficult environment to work in, and people underestimate this at their extreme peril. Given more troops as targets, the death toll would not have changed much for Hez, but may have skyrocketed for the IDF. This is what the hesitation was all about, and why the IAF was so essential to the battle here.

    As I’ve said before it’s a miracle that more civilians were not killed in Lebanon, and this is a testament to the careful targeting and humanitarian measures taken by the IDF. This is just another round guys. We need to get better and rethink things for another round. We can not expect miracles. We can expect that even very determined crazy people will not want all of their neighborhoods blown up just because some mullah wanted to prove something that afternoon. Deterrence can work, and it can work with states. Lebanon just needs to decide whether or not it wants to continue on as a state or just as a theocratic religiously based guerilla movement. And make no mistake about it, this decision for the future of Lebanon will come sooner than later. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Come on, look on the bright side.

    There have been so many, uh, Jewliciously heartwarming stories in this war. Like this one:

    Breast Implant Saves Woman after Hezbollah Attack

    One Israeli woman has received an unexpected boost from her breast implants during the Lebanon war — the silicone embeds saved her life during a Hezbollah rocket attack, a doctor said.

    “This is an extraordinary case, but it’s a fact that the silicone implants prevented her from a more serious and deeper wound,” Jacky Govrin, of the hospital in Nahariya that treated the woman, told army radio Tuesday.

    “The young woman went through surgery two years ago to have a larger chest,” he said. “During the war she was wounded in the chest by shrapnel” that got stuck in the implants instead of penetrating further.

    The woman did not emerge from her ordeal completely unscathed, however.

    “The shrapnel was removed but the implant had to be replaced,” Govrin said.

    via Breitbart

  • Now the humbers so far, from Globalsecurity.org:

    “In total, over the course of the conflict, an estimated 3,970 rockets were launched into Israel and the IAF carried out more than 10,000 sorties. The IDF estimates that over 500 Hizballah fighters were killed. The IDF reported 118 soldiers killed and over 400 wounded. Approximately 40 Israeli civilians were killed during the conflict and approximately 700-1000 Lebanese civilians were killed. Approximately 500,000 Israelis were displaced and approximately 1,000,000 Lebanese were displaced as a result of the fighting.”

    About what I estimated a day or so ago about Hez’s rockets and also with the number of sorties ran by the IAF. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Of course that should have been ‘numbers’ above. Your form ate my first post for some reason too. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Sigh, again some trouble with the security code.

    Anyway, the beef of my argument was that 1. one is not always right, 2. the others are not always wrong.

    Also, if you always consider that the world hates you no matter what you do, it will only make the situation truly become so, in the long, long run.

  • I hate comment’s. when you can comment you have to.

    Man this is just bullshit. A just war. Man that’s an okymoron. A just war come on!
    I won’t write much since i have already written a lot into a diffiret article but you are WRONG! Thank god the war is stopped so people will stop DYING for no good reason. And you are going on about this media against Israel.

    If you live in the US i understand your stupidity, but please read some books, broaden your mind.

  • Middle, this overstates it, surely. Israel is a hugely powerful, successful country, and did significant damage to H. To hell with Nasrallah’s televised boasting.

    Two points: you’re trying to have it both ways on the air campaign. If it was, indeed, misguided, who can blame world opinion for finding the bombing of Lebanese infrastructure and Beirut neighborhoods “disproportionate” (or pick your own adjective)? How do you suppose world opinion would have reacted had the US brought in bombers to level Fallujah and Ramadi (after dropping leaflets beforehand, of course)?

    You can approve of Israel’s going to war while questioning some of its tactics.

    Second, the war demonstrates Israel’s vulnerability. Did this exist the day before the war started? Of course. The war simply brought it home. Even the Arabs are able to adjust tactics, and there will be no more 1967-style cakewalks going forward.

    Which is why (I’m guessing from long distance) the long-term political winners will include the Peace Now types, the hard Israeli left. This newfound awareness of vulnerability will linger and shape policy toward the P’s going forward.

  • That is very well written. The wonderful thing about broken hearts is that they heal stronger than before…

  • Further re having it both ways: you can’t complain, ‘the whole world is against us, we can never wage a just war, people will always hate the Jews (see, e.g., Phoebe infra), we’re eternal victims’, etc. etc.– then race for Kofi Annan’s skirts when it suits your purposes. You can’t write off the entire world community– then expect the UN to put up 15,000 goyim to finish what the IDF couldn’t. “Bail our sorry asses out, President Chirac! All is forgiven!”

    And Israel continually fails to demonstrate a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. If you don’t bother to explain your actions (believing, arrogantly, that they’re self-evidently correct), you won’t win many friends. Just ask Condi Rice.

    Finally: you’re American, right, Middle? This just in: the weak resent the strong. Including the US, including (Jewish self-perceptions notwithstanding) Israel. Indeed, this is a price to be paid for strength. Get used to it.

  • Tom:

    On the air campaign. I think there is room for a sophisticated view of this campaign. My point was that Israel could have caused much greater damage and many more deaths by a significant margin. That they didn’t speaks well of their intentions as well as general accuracy and success in hitting targets. There is no question they made errors, some of them being extraordinarily tragic, but there is also little question that they were not intentional. I don’t believe this was conveyed in the majority of the media. Second, much of the infrastructure that was destroyed was legitimately destroyed for purposes of the war. There is no question that the closure of the airport as well as many roads was a necessary tactic in slowing down movement of men and materiel into S. Lebanon. However, from the time that Beirut airport was attacked, we began to see news reports about the harshness of Israel’s response as if it were unjust or illegitimate.

    What I consider misguided was the attempt to win this from the air when it is clear fighting should have been done on the ground. In that regard, thee came a point when one had to ask why they were proceeding with the air attacks and not yet going in with the ground troops.

    As for world response if the US were to blow up Fallujah and Ramadi (after dropping leaflets beforehand, of course), I think it depends on the targets, don’t you? If the targets have strategic value – and yes, that might include the notion that if Hizbullah shoots rockets into a major Israeli city, as they did when attacking Haifa at the beginning of the war, then their neighborhoods become relevant targets as well – then attacking certain parts of these cities is legitimate. Don’t forget that to avoid air attacks would have required an Israeli decision to go all the way to Beirut with ground forces. Would that have been preferable? Israel has been claiming that Hizbullah actually placed forces and resources in those neighborhoods. Where I have a problem is that the destruction seems to have gone beyond those targets. I see the IDF’s thinking on this but believe it was stupid and gave Hizbullah a media victory that influenced the overall outcome of this war.

    As you see, we both agree that one can be supportive of Israel while critical of its tactics. However, that is different than skewing the media or diplomatic landscape to indicate that Israel is the villain or has the intentions of a villain. This is particularly true because of the nature of the enemy and its champions in this case.

    Second, the war demonstrates Israel’s vulnerability. Did this exist the day before the war started? Of course. The war simply brought it home. Even the Arabs are able to adjust tactics, and there will be no more 1967-style cakewalks going forward.

    Agreed. Hopefully this will be a wake up call that will strengthen the IDF. Unfortunately, both the politicians and top IDF brass are already angling to save their own skins and as long as they play games, the situation will not be solved.

    Which is why (I’m guessing from long distance) the long-term political winners will include the Peace Now types, the hard Israeli left. This newfound awareness of vulnerability will linger and shape policy toward the P’s going forward.

    I fear the opposite is true. There will now no longer be any discussion of a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and what had been a rightward shift in the Israeli public because of the Palestinian war will now become a wholesale movement to that side. That’s not a bad thing because, in fact, the right can and does desire to make peace with the Arab nations. The problem lies in the vision of what that peace entails. Right now, I have to think that most Israelis have come to recognize that the existential war truly is an existential war in a way that the Palestinian War didn’t bring home. It also seems to me that most Israelis recognize the reality of the threat to a degree they hadn’t previously. The far Left has little to offer in this regard, and you should note Ben David’s comments in the other discussion about the conventional wisdom that has taken root which states that it is Israel showing any weakness that has truly brought about its weakness.

  • Air campaigns are intrinsically problematic, Middle, aren’t they? Bomber Harris thought he could bring the Nazis to their knees through area bombing of German cities. And while WWII was clearly a just cause, the incinerations of Hamburg and Dresden are a stain on our victory. Today, our own USAF is wont to overestimate its capacity to decide outcomes.

    Ethically, it’ll always be a dodgy business, and your notion that ‘it could’ve been worse’, is, frankly, not reassuring. As a US television viewer, I came away thinking that Israel was prepared to kill some Lebanese civilians through bombing to avoid the bloody work of dealing with H on the ground. I’ll bet this was a widespread perception.

    Re the ‘peace process’ (someone actually used that term on PBS last week!): one result of Olmert’s alacrity in seeking UN help may be enmeshing Israel in whatever the world community, in its ineffable wisdom, contrives to resolve the I-P dispute. I must say, I’m amazed that Israel would do an about-face on its attitudes toward the UN. But it’ll be hard to insist on enforcement of some UNSC resolutions while ignoring others, going forward.

  • Further re having it both ways: you can’t complain, ‘the whole world is against us, we can never wage a just war, people will always hate the Jews (see, e.g., Phoebe infra), we’re eternal victims’, etc. etc.– then race for Kofi Annan’s skirts when it suits your purposes. You can’t write off the entire world community– then expect the UN to put up 15,000 goyim to finish what the IDF couldn’t. “Bail our sorry asses out, President Chirac! All is forgiven!”

    Wow, I completely disagree with the premise leading to your conclusion. Israel certainly didn’t run for anybody’s skirts and as you note in your next comment, probably has little confidence in the UN’s ability to enforce or adjudicate the situation.

    In my opinion there are two things going on here. First, despite the White House’s strong initial support, once Qana happened, they felt things were going so wrong that it was time to slow down. Olmert proposed a solution that would achieve some of Israel’s objectives in this war while, essentially, compelling the UN – the international community, in other words – to take responsibility for their own inaction and demonstrable hypocrisy. This was a Blue Line border which was breached, not a state border between Israel and Lebanon. This was a border that was delineated and sanctioned by the UN, a body that had also taken the step of requiring, but then never enforcing, that Lebanon take control of its border and of the area abutting Israel.

    Rather than “running for the skirt,” you should view this as a clever “in your face” to the international community. I doubt very much that Israel believed the UNIFIL force would come in large size and with a mandate to fight, but figures that if it does, it won’t hurt it much and might even succeed in its mission. If it doesn’t come, Israel will then be free to say to the world, if Hizbullah attacks or builds up forces once more, “You were too afraid to defend your own resolutions and requirements and we are not going to pay with our bodies – we will fight now since you won’t.”

    There may be problems with this outcome, but as I noted, I think the White House required that Olmert do something and this was his solution.

    I certainly do not accept your comment about “goyim” standing there in the line of fire for Israel. In fact, if you know anything about the IDF and Israel, you would know the perception there is precisely the opposite of that. Note that Israel has never requested, expected or accepted that a single American soldier would fight on its behalf.

    Second, I don’t disagree that the air campaign stood in lieu of tackling Hizbullah on the ground. I think it did. I guess they anticipated some civilian losses as well. I don’t think the trade-off was the key or even one of the primary considerations, however. I think they believed they could win this war by turning the population against Hizbullah while taking the opportunity to damage some of Hizbullah’s assets. I do not believe the IDF anticipated that Hizbullah would fight as it did, or succeed in the rocket war as it did. In other words, a short air campaign became a long one, particularly since the political echelon refused to send in large ground forces.

    On the same note, I want to point out to you the significant difference between Dresden in ’45 and Beirut in ’06. I mean, where is the comparison? This was not a war of revenge by Israel; they did not seek to, nor did they, destroy Beirut or anything but a small section of the city; the number of fatalities among Beirut civilians is far, far, far smaller; and as far as we can see, the air attacks were far from indiscriminate.

    Two more points: the first relates to Israel’s respect for the “decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” Which opinions? Which mankind? There are vast portions of mankind that seek to see Israel destroyed altogether, or become a Palestinian state. Those opinions? Are you referring to opinions that Israel should allow for a Palestinian state? There are plenty of Israelis who agree. Are you speaking of the opinions that the presence of Israeli soldiers in Palestinian towns end? Gaza is example one of an Israeli experiment with that issue. In fact, Israel’s departure from Lebanon in 2000 is another example. If you want to have this discussion, you need to be more specific about which of mankind’s opinions Israel disrespects.

    I will say this, however, it seems to me that Hizbullah and Hamas truly disrespect the opinions of mankind and yet do not suffer the same level of criticism as Israel. It seems to me that Iran and Pakistan disrespect mankind’s opinions and suffer little for their disrespect. It seems to me that China and Russia also disrespect world opinion but thumb their noses at mankind. In fact, the problem here is that Israel has little in the way of oil or other natural resources, or wealth, or size, and sits among a much larger segment of mankind ( Iraq alone has triple Israe’s population while Egypt has 12 times) and they have a problem with Israel whatever it does.

    The second point is that of respecting UN resolutions. Israel takes great care in trying to respect UN obligations under international law. That is, the resolutions coming out of the Security Council. While the UNGAR resolutions do not have the force of international law and are considered but not necessarily followed by Israel, as far as I know, Israel is in compliance with all UNSCR resolutions. Let’s also consider that it is for some strange reason the beneficiary, in terms of resolutions handled by the UN, of a significantly disproportionate number of resolutions even while numerous other conflicts around the globe burn and often with much greater harm to civilians, infrastructure, dignity of human beings, etc. than has ever been caused by the Israeli-Arab conflict.

  • Gaza is example one of an Israeli experiment with that issue. In fact, Israel’s departure from Lebanon in 2000 is another example.

    Israel departure in 2000 was not fully complete as it left Shebaa Farms to Israel. Both Lebanon and Syria claimed that contested area to be Lebanese. This was the one issue which fueled Hizbollah’s “Israeli invader” mindset and helped them continue their fighting against Israel.

    Valid claim or not, was the the issue of Shebaa Farms ever negotiated to reach a concensus between all parties? And if not, why not?

    I think sitting down and discussing is infinitely better than shooting exploding high-velocity projectiles.

  • Finnish, Israel’s departure from Lebanon was absolutely complete. You see, they even went to the UN to get its blessing. The UN came and checked, and then it went back to old maps and checked those as well. When it was done it gave Israel’s departure official sanctions as complete and Israel’s fulfilment of UNSCR 425 as completed.

    During this process, the issue of Shebaa Farms was also brought under discussion and was examined carefully by the UN, with the clear agreement by Israel that it would comply with the UN’s decision. The UN, after careful research, concluded that Shebaa is Syrian territory and therefore would remain under Israel’s control until it came to a resolution with Syria.

    Contrary to your claim, Syria has never agreed that Shebaa is Lebanese territory. For heaven’s sake, Syria has a tough time admitting Lebanon is Lebanese territory!

    As for the reason this claim has not been settled with Syria, there are many reasons, among them were the failed talks between Rabin and Assad Sr., and the decision by Barak to focus on the Palestinian track rather than the Syrian track. Once Assad Jr. took over, it has been difficult for him to negotiate or discuss anything since he is not as strong as his father was and anyway, Israel has been pre-occupied with the Palestinian war and then the disengagement.

  • Yep, you can actually find statements from Kofi Anan down thru the years saying the same thing themiddle is saying. It’s all a bogus plot/crock. Cheers, ‘VJ’

  • Themiddle, for the claim I made I refer you to 22.5.2000 UN “Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978)” which says:

    The Government of Lebanon informed the United Nations of a joint understanding between Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic that the farmlands were Lebanese, including a decision of a joint Lebanese-Syrian border committee that concluded in 1964 that the area was Lebanese and that the international border should be redefined consistent with that conclusion. In a telephone conversation with me [NB: meaning Kofi Annan] on 16 May 2000, the Syrian Foreign Minister, Mr. Al-Shara’, stated that the Syrian Arab Republic supported Lebanon’s claim.

    That was what I based my point about Shebaa Farms on.

    I don’t know if the Syrian position has changed after year 2000. If it has, I happily stand corrected and thank you for correcting me.

  • Oh, and I don’t really care who actually has Shebaa Farms. I wanted to point out it was that issue which became/was used to become the proverbial stone in the shoe.

    What’s your take, do you think there will be a day when the leaders of Israel and the countries surrounding Israel will someday sit in one table and negotiate to receive a concensus on all those things which are not clicking together (whatever they may be)? Or is it just… infeasible?

  • Israel had already negotiated for peace with Egypt by returning every last inch of the Sinai – land won in a war caused by the Egyptians, and won with the blood of Israeli soldiers – to make peace. Rabin was very close to peace with Assad and the discussions were about returning virtually the entire Golan Heights with the sticking point being Assad’s demand that Syria have access up to and including the Sea of Galilee. My sense is that Israel is open to such discussion as long as the Palestinians are open to true compromise. The 2002 Saudi initiated Arab League Plan has some interesting points but also has significant flaws. The problem right now has become the dominant role of the most extreme players on the Arab side.

    As for Shebaa:
    Pro-Israel source:

    On May 22, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan gently rebuffed the Syrian/Lebanese claim in his report to the UN Security Council and recommended that the line separating the areas of operation of UNFIL and the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights (which would exclude the Shebaa Farms) be used for the purposes of determining Israel’s compliance with Resolution 425. His justification for this decision merits a direct quotation:

    This UNIFIL-UNDOF line coincides with the border line most commonly found on maps issued by the Government of Lebanon, including those published after 1966. This line has also been accepted by the Government of Lebanon for 22 years in the context of the UNIFIL area of operations. In addition, this same line was approved by the Governments of Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic in their 1974 Disengagement Agreement.

    Pro-Arab source:

    At the time of the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, the international community acknowledged that there was ambiguity over the nationality of the Shebaa Farms. However, in the absence of conclusive documentary evidence, the UN ultimately decided to stand by pre-existing determinations that designated the land as Syrian.

    However, the UN and other international parties have indicated a willingness to reconsider the decision should conclusive evidence be put forward by Syria and Lebanon.

    On 28 November 2005, a step was made in this direction at the Euro-Mediterranean Summit in Barcelona, during which Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa announced plans to officially concede the Farms to Lebanon.

    No actions have followed his announcement

Leave a Comment