Founded in 1978 to keep the peace after a brief Israeli campaign to drive the Palestine Liberation Organization out of Lebanon, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was granted the more difficult task of keeping military activity out of the southern part of that country following the 2006 war between Israel and Hizballah. Last week, a UNIFIL convoy passing through a Hizballah stronghold came under fire, resulting in the death of an Irish peacekeeper. Sarit Zehavi comments:

UN Security Council Resolution 2650, renewing the peacekeeping force’s mandate last August, clearly stated that UNIFIL’s freedom of movement, and its ability to move without being accompanied by the Lebanese army, must be maintained. In response to the decision, Hizballah issued explicit threats, saying [that the resolution] would turn UNIFIL forces “into occupation forces whose role would be to protect the Israeli enemy by pursuing the people and the resistance”—in other words, calling for an open season on UNIFIL.

For years, UNIFIL soldiers have been described as agents of the “Zionist entity” working for the “enemy peacekeeping forces” Additionally, Hizballah incited against UNIFIL on social media before and after the [recent attack].

This event demonstrates, on the one hand, the international system’s failure to treat Hizballah as a terrorist organization that primarily threatens the security of Lebanon itself. On the other hand, it present an opportunity to turn the equation around. . . . World powers must take advantage of this opportunity to gain leverage over the Lebanese government. Demands to investigate the killing of the Irish soldier and bring those responsible to justice could be a powerful message that the international system will no longer tolerate the strengthening of Hizballah within the Lebanese system, and that its power must be limited.

Established in 2012 and maintaining branches in Europe, North America, and Iran, the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Network claims its goal is merely to show “solidarity” for imprisoned Palestinians. The organization’s leader, however, has admitted to being a representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a notorious terrorist group whose most recent accomplishments include murdering a seventeen-year-old girl. As Arsen Ostrovsky and Patricia Teitelbaum point out, Samidoun is just one example of how the European Union allows Iran-backed terrorists to operate in its midst:

The PFLP is a proxy of the Iranian regime, which provides the terror group with money, training, and weapons. Samidoun . . . has a branch in Tehran. It has even held events there, under the pretext of “cultural activity,” to elicit support for operations in Europe. Its leader, Khaled Barakat, is a regular on Iran’s state [channel] PressTV, calling for violence and lauding Iran’s involvement in the region. It is utterly incomprehensible, therefore, that the EU has not yet designated Samidoun a terror group.

According to the Council of the European Union, groups and/or individuals can be added to the EU terror list on the basis of “proposals submitted by member states based on a decision by a competent authority of a member state or a third country.” In this regard, there is already a standing designation by Israel of Samidoun as a terror group and a decision of a German court finding Barakat to be a senior PFLP operative.

Given the irrefutable axis-of-terror between Samidoun, PFLP, and the Iranian regime, the EU has a duty to put Samidoun and senior Samidoun leaders on the EU terror list. It should do this not as some favor to Israel, but because otherwise it continues to turn a blind eye to a group that presents a clear and present security threat to the European Union and EU citizens.