Lacroix Upholds Role Of UN Peacekeeping In Lebanon And Syria
He said UNIFIL 'has been working very hard' in the wake of the cessation of hostilities.
Achievements in Lebanon
The agreement last November between Lebanon and Israel followed more than a year of fighting on Lebanese territory between Hezbollah militants and Israeli forces, linked to the war in Gaza.
'I believe that there are a number of achievements that have been realized with the support of UNIFIL,' he said.
Mr. Lacroix reported that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have continued to strengthen their presence south of the Litani river, with UNIFIL's support. The Mission has also worked to identify and neutralize weapon caches.
Furthermore, UNIFIL also continues to play a critical liaison and de-conflicting role between the LAF and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and supports the local population, including through mine action and clearing roads.
While highlighting these achievements, he stressed that more needs to be done to achieve the full implementation of Security Council resolution 1701 (2006), which defines UNIFIL's mandate, noting that violations continue.
Mr. Lacroix also interacted with the Lebanese authorities who 'unequivocally' upheld the critical need for the Mission's continuous presence.
His visit also coincided with last days in office of UNIFIL Force Commander Major General Aroldo Lázaro Sáenz, who he praised for heading the Mission 'during extremely, extremely challenging times.'
He also welcomed incoming Force Commander Diodato Abagnara and wished him all the best going forward.
Developments in Syria
Meanwhile, UNDOF continues its 'critically important' role liaising between the Syrian and Israeli authorities and working to resolve the conflict.
He said the presence of the IDF in the so-called area of separation is a violation as only UNDOF can have a military presence there, according to the 1973 Designation of Forces Agreement.
Mr. Lacroix interacted with senior officials from the interim authorities in Syria who expressed support for UNDOF, adding that communication between them has improved.
'At the same time, I heard very clearly from the Syrian authorities that they are ready to assume the full authority of the whole of Syrian territory, including deploying the military and security presence to all the Syrian territory,' he said.
'That includes the area where UNDOF is, of course, according to and consistent with the provisions of the 1973 Agreement.'
He welcomed this 'expression of readiness' while emphasizing that UNDOF's goal is a return to the full implementation of the accord.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Gaza: UN Experts Appalled By Murder Of Al Jazeera Correspondents In Israeli Strike
GENEVA (12 August 2025) – The deliberate killing of four Al Jazeera journalists in Gaza, including correspondent Anas Al-Sharif, was an attempt to silence reporting on the ongoing genocide and starvation campaign in the besieged enclave, UN experts* said today, condemning the targeted attacks in the strongest possible terms. 'The killing of four journalists just as Israel announces its plan to take over Gaza City is no coincidence, but a deliberate attempt to silence those who would have exposed the IDF's atrocities to the world,' the experts said. On Sunday 10 August 2025, Israel's armed forces killed Al Jazeera correspondents Anas Al-Sharif, Mohammed Qreiqeh and cameramen Ibrahim Zaher and Mohammed Noufal in an airstrike on a tent near al-Shifa Hospital in eastern Gaza City. In a statement, the IDF said the killings were targeted, and accused Al-Sharif of being the head of a Hamas terrorist cell, citing alleged intelligence and documents found in Gaza. On 31 July 2025, the Special Rapporteurs denounced serious threats and unfounded accusations against Anas Al-Sharif by an Israeli army spokesperson and flagged it as a well-known, shameful tactic by the IDF to silence the truth about heinous crimes committed in Gaza. 'It is outrageous that the Israeli army dares to first launch a campaign to smear Anas Al-Sharif as Hamas in order to discredit his reporting and then kill him and his colleagues for speaking the truth to the world,' the experts said. 'We demand an immediate independent investigation into the killings and for Israel to urgently grant full access to the international media to enter Gaza. If Israel has nothing to hide, why does it continue to keep international journalists out?' they said. 'If Israel again refuses an independent investigation or access for international journalists, it will reconfirm its own culpability and cover up of the genocide.' 'Journalism is not terrorism. Israel has provided no credible evidence of the latter against any of the journalists that it has targeted and killed with impunity,' the experts said. 'These are acts of an arrogant army that believes itself to be impune, no matter the gravity of the crimes it commits. The impunity must end. The States that continue to support Israel must now place tough sanctions against its government in order to end the killings, the atrocities and the mass starvation.' The experts are in contact with the Government of Israel on this matter. *The experts: Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression Francesca Albanese, .
1News
12 hours ago
- 1News
Swarbrick kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has again been kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise for a comment she made yesterday in the House. Yesterday, Swarbrick was kicked out of Parliament during an urgent debate on recognising Palestine as a state. The debate was called after Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Government was weighing up its position on the issue. In recent times, the UK, Canada, France and Australia have announced plans to recognise Palestine as a state. During the debate on Tuesday, Swarbrick said MPs could "grow a spine" and support her bill which would impose sanctions on Israel. ADVERTISEMENT Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, left, and Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee. (Source: 1News/Getty) In response, Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee said: "That is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise." When she refused, Brownlee said she would have to leave for the rest of the week and removed her from the House. However, Brownlee later signalled he would again give Swarbrick the opportunity to apologise in the House today, where she then could avoid being barred. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including the legal fight to get a New Zealand woman and her child out of US immigration detention, sliding house prices, and Taylor Swift's big reveal. (Source: 1News) Returning to the House today, Swarbrick refused to withdraw and apologise, and at first, didn't leave when asked. Brownlee then called a vote to name her, which the majority of MPs supported. Swarbrick then removed herself from the House. ADVERTISEMENT Peters: 'Wasn't offensive enough to be booted' New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. (Source: 1News) Earlier, when heading into the House, NZ First leader Winston Peters spoke out against Swarbrick's removal. "I didn't agree with one thing she said, but it wasn't offensive enough to be booted out," he said. "If you can have John Key say 'get some guts', or accept the C-word — which was outrageous — then how can you be offensive in that context? "Parliament is a robust theatre for debate. People have serious emotional concerns about what they believe in, and to take away the essence... about the emotional concern you are talking about, is to neuter the place, and that's bad for New Zealand's democracy." Netanyahu 'lost the plot' – Luxon ADVERTISEMENT Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. (Source: 1News) On his way into the House, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon issued fresh criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his role in the war in Gaza. 'I think what's happening in Gaza is utterly appalling. I think Netanyahu has gone way too far, I think he has lost the plot." Luxon said overnight attacks on Gaza City were "utterly unacceptable". 'He is not listening to the international community, and that is unacceptable.' Labour leader Chris Hipkins was today asked whether he would agree with Luxon's comment on Netanyahu. "Probably, yes, actually, that's probably quite an astute observation." Hipkins said he took a moment to pause before answering, looking surprised, because of the "strength of the language". ADVERTISEMENT 'Uncharted territory' – Swarbrick Swarbrick speaking to reporters today. (Source: 1News) After leaving the House, Swarbrick said Brownlee had "been explicit about the fact he was the member who took personal offence" to her comment yesterday. "We are in uncharted territory. As far as I am aware, there is no situation where a Speaker has asked for somebody to withdraw and apologise, that person has refused to apologise, then been ordered to leave the House, i.e. being punished, the person has complied, and then the Speaker has sought to reopen the issue the very next day. "It would appear that now we are in a position where things are being completely made up." When asked about Luxon's comments on Netanyahu, Swarbrick said: "The Government has yet to put any meaningful substance behind their words." She said the very least the Government could do was "apply the exact same approach they did to Russia" – again referencing her bill to apply sanctions to Israel.
NZ Herald
13 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Recognition of Palestine - NZ weighs decision amid global pressure
Neither argument is strictly relevant to New Zealand's decision, which will be made by UN leaders' week in six weeks. The purpose of recognising Palestinian statehood is not to please Hamas or the Palestinian Authority or to infuriate Israel, although it will do all of those things. It is not to instantly magic up a happy ending to the misery in Gaza. It is to preserve the viability of a two-state solution, a state of Israel co-existing with a state of Palestine in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Every country that has joined the latest international effort to recognise Palestinian statehood has cited that as the rationale. And the reason for that is that Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu is redoubling efforts to undermine and reject a two-state solution, including plans to take control of Gaza City, and a symbolic vote in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) last month calling for Israel to annex the West Bank. 'The Netanyahu government's rejection of a two-state solution is wrong – it's wrong morally and it's wrong strategically,' said British Foreign Secretary David Lammy. 'The two-state solution is in mortal danger. It is about to give way to perpetual confrontation. That is something France simply cannot resign itself to,' said France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noel Barrot. 'Prospects for a two-state solution have been steadily and gravely eroded,' said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. 'The Netanyahu Government is extinguishing the prospect of a two-state solution by rapidly expanding illegal settlements, threatening annexation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and explicitly opposing any Palestinian state,' said Albanese. As in New Zealand, the two-state solution has long been endorsed by most countries, and the United Nations, as the only fair long-term answer to two peoples with claims to the same land. Palestinians wait to receive hot meals with their pots and pans in Deir Al Balah, Gaza. Photo / Anadolu via Getty Images The alternative, one state of Israel, is one in which the Palestinian quest for a homeland would never be satisfied, one in which Palestinian rights would be subjugated and one in which conflict would be permanent. At times, Israel has supported a two-state solution. But Netanyahu, now in this third stint as Prime Minister, has actively undermined it by supporting Israeli settlements in the West Bank, in breach of international law. When New Zealand was preparing to co-sponsor UN Security Council resolution 2334 in 2016 – again in order to preserve a two-state solution - he described it as 'a declaration of war'. Netanyahu had already bullied Egypt out of co-sponsoring the resolution, but it passed, and Israel withdrew its ambassador from Wellington for five months. The United States, whose Secretary of State John Kerry had done a huge amount of work in the Middle East, abstained, allowing it to pass without dissent. The present has some echoes to back then. Today's rallying of the international community, once again to preserve the two-state solution, also serves to reinforce the position that this protracted conflict needs a political solution, not a military one. Since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the ensuing crisis, New Zealand's position has remained non-committal about when it will recognise Palestine and to 'focus on the needs of the moment'. It is the classic bob-each-way position of a small state, trying to keep onside with Israel by not recognising Palestine, and keeping Palestinians onside by saying it's just a matter of when, not if. But given that Israel has thumbed its nose at the international community and its disproportionate, horrific actions in Gaza, the question New Zealand must ask is whether it is still valid to try to please everyone. With movement on the issue from a large number of like-minded friends, Australia, Britain, France, and Canada give a small country the cover it might not normally have over such a major shift. No shift is likely without conditions. They could be similar to those accepted by France and Canada, such as commitments by the Palestinian Authority to reform its governance, commit to elections in 2026, exclude any role for Hamas, and demilitarise any Palestinian state. If a condition by New Zealand were to wait for recognition until an actual state was in place, that would be tantamount to the status quo. Foreign Minister Winston Peters took an oral item to cabinet on Monday about recognition of a Palestinian state, as opposed to a cabinet paper. That is not to say that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade won't have plenty of advice on recognition, and that is being prepared. But it is also a reminder that no matter what the official advice is, it will be a political decision. Peters himself, a former student of Hebrew, has been a hawk on Israel. He was critical of New Zealand sponsoring resolution 2334 in 2016. That meant his strong criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza last year and this year has carried more weight. Planes drop aid packages by parachute over western Gaza City, Gaza. Photo / Anadolu via Getty Images It is acknowledged by most countries that the United States and President Trump, Israel's strongest ally, hold the key to ending the conflict and what happens afterwards. And because Peters is sympathetic to the Trump Administration and its America First ethos, he is open to accusations of delaying recognition in order to please the United States. That is why Peters, despite professing to loathe the common refrain that New Zealand has an independent foreign policy on the basis that it implies that others don't, on Monday insisted that 'New Zealand has an independent foreign policy'. An important factor in how New Zealand is approaching the issue of recognition is the unique makeup of the Government. It is the prerogative of the cabinet to make such a decision. However, given that the cabinet avoids votes (National with 14 out of 20 would win every time) and operates on party consensus, it effectively gives a veto to each of the three parties in Government, National, Act and NZ First. That could lead to an outrageous outcome if, for example, every party in Parliament except Act favoured recognition of Palestinian statehood or if every party except Act and NZ First supported recognition. The parties other than Act, led by Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, and NZ First, led by Peters, represent 85% of the Parliament. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the recognition of Palestine is a complex issue and will take time to work through. Actually, it is not that hard. What will be hard is presenting the views of a disparate Government to a country that has largely lost sympathy with Israel because of its appalling treatment of Palestinians. One of the reasons Peters might find it difficult to support recognition of Palestinian statehood is that he has spent the past year saying why New Zealand shouldn't. But when the circumstances change, as they have done, it is not unreasonable for the response to change.
