"Attacks against peacekeepers are a violation of international law and humanitarian law" and "They could be war crimes". This is what Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, said. Emmanuel Macron and Pedro Sanchez have firmly condemned the attacks of the Israeli army against Unifil troops in Lebanon. In particular, as reported by the Ansa Press Agency, both the French President and the Spanish Prime Minister seem to share the substantial aspect of a decision that would seem to be impossible to ignore, namely that "we must stop selling weapons to Israel ... to put an end to conflicts".

Giorgia Meloni, in turn, wanted to underline that the attitude assumed by Israel appears "unacceptable" since it "violates (...) UN resolution 1701" which expressly prohibits the presence of weapons and so-called irregular militiamen in southern Lebanon.

Moreover, all States must make a constant commitment to ensuring respect for international humanitarian law by those involved in armed conflict, as provided for by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and customary international law. On the other hand, however, Benyamin Netanyahu, in the context of a statement, would have addressed the Secretary General of the United Nations Antonio Guterres to mean that the UNIFIL mission would hinder military operations against pro-Iranian Hezbollah fighters, claiming that "the time has come to remove UNIFIL from Hezbollah's strongholds and combat areas". This is therefore the situation as it seems to be learned.

What can I say? It would almost seem like a paradox within a paradox. From peacekeepers to an unwitting military target it would seem like a moment, someone might exclaim. It would be necessary to understand without stopping at the mere declaration of Benjamin Netanyahu, known as Bibi, addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations.

An almost dramatically banal statement despite the shocking effect of its content. In essence, according to what has been understood in the last few hours, Bibi, through the military actions directed against the blue helmets, would like to pursue the objective of having a clear field to gain the upper hand in the clashes with Hezbollah, which have worsened in the last period. In short, he would like, it would seem, to consider himself almost “legibus solutus”, assuming and certainly not conceding, that he could ever be considered as such by the International Community. Even more so when Benjamin Netanyahu has even come to the decision to turn those same weapons supplied by the West against his own supporters.

And to think that in the now distant 1984 he was appointed by Yitzhak Shamir as Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations and held the position for four years. It would be important, then, and probably, to mentally retrace Netanyahu's political thought, at least to try to understand the ideology and strategy adopted in the current circumstance.

And what if, with reference to the current action, it were an act of self-determination? "Peut-être", the French would say using the dubitative formula. But what if it were not only external self-determination, so to speak, but was instead also and above all an expression of so-called internal self-determination, almost as if he wanted to consider himself "free" from any conditioning (if truly perceived as such) of the Western Allies in order to affirm the centrality of his political figure?

His tactics could perhaps be understood by analyzing the formal signals that through his actions translate from the state of power to that of practical act in turn, perhaps, expressive of a political plan roughly contradictory in its dangerousness. Let us not forget that the Blue Line represents the demarcation line between Israel and Lebanon set on the now distant 7th of June 2000 by the UN. And the security of the International Community in its entirety does not appear otherwise and/or differently negotiable: security remains the alpha and omega of every action and deliberation. Also because if Benjamin Netanyahu's actions were to lead to a dichotomous choice (the hypothesis is only argumentative) between the security and stability of the International Community and the survival of Israel, the choice could very likely be forced.

How far would Tel Aviv like to go then? The facts would not seem to be able to ignore. Israel wanted to extend its military offensive along the southern border of Lebanon in violation of the aforementioned Resolution. It would not even seem possible to imagine a new dark period for the security of the populations.

Benjamin Netanyahu cannot in any way be so “influencing” with his actions as to risk dragging the entire West into a clash of civilizations: peace, as Pope Francis has repeatedly reiterated with appeals that are as simple in their meaning as they are heartfelt, must be preserved and pursued with determination. A strong thought that should be translated into reality as soon as possible, above and beyond any consideration.

More than ever, concerns seem to be growing about the way in which the Israeli government is conducting its military operations, and what happened recently seems to have resulted in nothing more than a sharp increase in the margin of dissent regarding its political choices.

As recently as October last year, Ursula Von der Leyen and Roberta Metsola, visiting Israel, at the meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu had expressed their full support for the attack suffered. Today the European Union would seem to have to take a unanimous position to deliberate on the best solution to what happened to the detriment of the Unifil mission.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata