Conflict: Israel and Lebanon part 3

Well, at this point, its all speculation.

However, I cannot understand why the UN soldiers stayed at that post as the bombs fell ever closer to them. Its not like they were doing anything there, I mean anything constructive.

Well, unless I am mistaken, 9 soldiers from the Belgian contingent of UN soldiers were killed in Rwanda back in the 1990s (1994?).

You are correct that the UN was established to deal with conflicts between states. However, that isn’t what we are dealing with often now, right? And the UN has been ineffective for many years, not becayuse of anything the US has done, but because of its structure and make-up… The US is not the only nation that uses its veto or vote to further its own agenda. No, the UN hasn’t “workded” for a long time. And everyone is to blame for that.

OK, so the Israelis are suspect.

The UN has not been much of a friend to Israel, has it?

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNFIL. According to Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, UNIFIL was established to:

  • Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon; [/quote]

Mission accomplished… not due to any effort on the part of the UN.

Complete failure. But, what was the UN doing toward that goal, anyway?

Again, a complete failure. And again, what was the UN doing toward that goal?

A better question would be what could it do towards this goal? The answer is nothing of course. What they were doing was all they could; reporting and recording breaches of the terms outlined above. I presume, because I really don’t know, that these observers are supposed to be an indication that the world is watching. Obviously not much chop in a full-scale assault as we are seeing now, but one presumes an independent eye when things are much more low key.

Incidentally, Australia has since moved it’s committment to UNFIL observers back to Beirut. There are also reports a Canadian soldier has been killed.

[quote]Huang Guang Chen wrote:
Sorry, who’s friends are these? [/quote]

the UN has not been much of a friend to Israel, has it? [/quote]

Depends when you’re looking at. Recently it has opposed Israeli violence, which seems like a fair call to me, but of course back in the early days, Zionist terrorists took full advantage of the UN presence. Even so, unless we are happy to throw away all constraints and attempts to limit the carnage of war, I don’t believe the UN deserve a routine clobbering by the Israelis.

Tigerman:

Agreed, but coming from a medium sized country with minimal military resources, I naturally gravitate to the ideals of the UN. Perhaps if I came from a nuclear armed nation with vast military and economic resources, I’d find it all a pain in the arse.

HG[/b]

Where there is a will, there is a way. I think the nations that want the UN to be a force, unfortunately lack the will to enable it to be such a force.

I think the UN could, if its members wanted it to, do much more.

I don’t presume the same. I think the UN is utterly worthhless, as it is.

[quote=“Michael Young, the opinion editor of Lebanon’s Daily Star, commenting on the UN efforts in Lebanon”] …that’s a tried and failed solution.

A 2,000-man force known as UNIFIL has been present on the ground since 1978, and its expansion would be a logical step… But this plan will go nowhere if Hezbollah retains its weapons and can fire its rockets against Israel while hiding behind the international peacekeepers.[/quote]

On Sept. 2, 2004, 4 years after the UN certified Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanon, the UNSC passed Resolution 1559, calling for “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias” and “the extension of the control of the Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory.”

Well… what did the world do about that?

Point being? Fact is they were targeted while being neutral observers, so it’s actually irrelevant if you think they weren’t doing anything contstructive. It neither explains and certainly does not excuse what happened.

Point being? Fact is they were targeted while being neutral observers, so it’s actually irrelevant if you think they weren’t doing anything contstructive. It neither explains and certainly does not excuse what happened.[/quote]

No point at all, Rascal. I’m just trying to make some sense out of madness and wondering what the heck they were doing and why they didn’t get out of the way.

Fact is, however, that you do not know for certain whether or not the UN post was targeted.

In any event, I have already stated that I am not excusing any intentional targeting of the UN post, if that is indeed what happened.

Well, unless I am mistaken, 9 soldiers from the Belgian contingent of UN soldiers were killed in Rwanda back in the 1990s (1994?).

Edit: The UN special representative in Iraq and at least 16 others died in a bomb explosion that ripped through the organization’s headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003. The Israelis were nowhere near that attack…

Okay, routinely kills UN soldiers?

Edit: I never usually read Greg Sheridan’s editorial pieces, but this is a good one:

[quote] Bad move by Israel
We should lament the probable destruction of the brightest star on the Middle East horizon, writes Foreign editor Greg Sheridan

It was the most cosmopolitan, democratic, livable and successful Arab society in the Middle East. The Cedar Revolution last year led to the departure of the Syrians. This was a wonderful human triumph, participated in by Lebanese Christians as well as Muslims. But it also had a huge political import. In Washington recently, several analysts told me their most fervent hope was that one day Iraq would come to resemble Lebanon: a bit of chaos, a bit of disorder, a few militias with too many weapons, but the energy of the street, the instinct of the trader, the growing national pride pulling it through to something better.

In other words, the success of Lebanon was the brightest star on the Middle East horizon.

. . . None of this remotely excuses Hezbollah, which bears the lion’s share of the blame for this situation. Its leaders probably calculated on and wanted tough Israeli action for a multiplicity of political and strategic reasons.

But in my view Israel has imposed too high a price on Lebanon for too uncertain an end. After two weeks it has captured or killed very few Hezbollah guerillas. It is extremely unlikely that Israel will succeed in getting an international military force not only on its own border but also on the Syria-Lebanon border to prevent Syria resupplying Hezbollah.

Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. But the gains from its actions are very uncertain, while the cost is certain. And enormous.[/quote]

HG

:wink:

Its difficult for me to believe that the Israelis intentionally targeted the UN post. Difficult, but not impossible. Show me the proof and I will condemn them for the act.

My point is simply that the Israelis are not more evil than their enemies… this mess is an old and complicated one, and the cycle of violence appears to be unbreakable… But, there are many people at fault in this mess, and it isn’t just the Israelis and the US. I think the Europeans deserve a great deal of “credit” for their part in supporting Israel’s enemies, and the UN deserves scorn for its utter ineptness.

from another site:

[quote]Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister, is asking a great question when he wonders why Kofi Annan chose to keep the UNIFIL forces in harm’s way in Lebanon even after Israel asked for all non-Hezbollah personnel to evacuate from South Lebanon. In fact, not only does Kofi Annan want the UNIFIL troops to remain in place, but he has called for the UNIFIL troops to remain for an additional month after their mandate expires: un.org/radio/story.asp?NewsID=4888 .

My theory is that Kofi did this in order to cover up evidence of UNIFIL collaboration with Hezbollah for the past several years.

Conventional wisdom as of July 25, when the above-referenced article was published, had it that within a week or two Israel would have to agree to a ceasefire. If UNIFIL were to leave Lebanon while Israeli troops still were advancing in Lebanon, then Israel might discover stashes of katyushas secreted in UNIFIL bases and other evidence that would expose UNIFIL’s perfidious collaboration with the Hezbollah terrorists. On the other hand, if UNIFIL were to stay in place until Israel’s movement is eliminated, then these secrets may remain hidden from Israel and the US indefinitely.

As usual, it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up. In this case, the cover-up may be responsible for the deaths of the four UN victims.

This is the only justification that I can think of for Kofi Annan’s decision to keep the UNIFIL troops in harm’s way now and for the next month. [/quote]
Any comments here?
PM Harper is asking a valid Q, IMO.

:wink:

Its difficult for me to believe that the Israelis intentionally targeted the UN post. Difficult, but not impossible. Show me the proof and I will condemn them for the act.[/quote]

Right. So we are expected to believe Israel has the ability to pinpoint groups of men with rocket launchers hiding in urban areas but fails to spot a UN bunker lit up like a Christmas tree in the middle of the desert!

Tee hee. Sorry. Not really funny. But, well, quite funny. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch “How Not to be Seen”.

So, Israel’s hands are always to be tied?

How should Israel defend itself from rockets lobbed into Israel and from having its soldiers killed and kidnapped from Israeli soil?

The UN? The UN is shit worthless… it hasn’t succeeded in securing the border there, has it?

Does the UN even want to protect Israel?

I dunno. Really.

But, I do know that all kinds of snafu stuff occurs during wars.

I think Israel should explain itself, but, in the absence of proof, I find it difficult to believe that they intentionally hit the UN post. I acknowledge that I do not want to believe it. But, show me the proof and I will believe it.

How would hitting the UN post help Israel’s cause? Doesn’t make sense to me.

I can understand that, but if I were to tell you I had proof, well I’d be in the unloving arms of Mossad in an instant. It may turn out that it was an accident, but there are just far too many documented incidents of the Israelis popping unrelated parties, and not just in the heat of battle. Journalists, medics, observers, you name it, they’ve killed them all.

It’s a joke, right? Umm, simple question, why? :unamused:

When bullshit like this is peddled as truth, it really is no wonder the world is such a fucking mess.

HG

You can PM it to me. I promise I will not turn you in… :wink:

An interesting read about about the way markets may turn if the crisis evolves to other countries. Maybe useful for W to read on his upcoming 5 week vacation.

clipped from the bottom of this article:
financialsense.com/fsu/editorial … /0725.html

[quote=“Tigerman”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]
Edit: I never usually read Greg Sheridan’s editorial pieces, but this is a good one:

[quote] [b][url=http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19925802-601,00.html]Bad move by Israel

. . . None of this remotely excuses Hezbollah, which bears the lion’s share of the blame for this situation. Its leaders probably calculated on and wanted tough Israeli action for a multiplicity of political and strategic reasons.

Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. But the gains from its actions are very uncertain, while the cost is certain. And enormous[/url].[/quote]

[/quote]

So, Israel’s hands are always to be tied?[/quote]

So it’s OK for Israel to go around blowing people up simply because of their geographical location with US bombs ? In what way is that different from Hezbollah blowing up Haifa? You never know, there may have been a rogue Israeli soldier there who once murdered a Palestinian, and therefore killing 47 Jewish women and children was worth it to get him.

I think they should be lopped off, personally. Disam the fuckers until they can prove they’re unwilling to toss their goodies around willy nilly. Your government could do that.

One has to wonder if that precision guided weapon that destroyed that white and brightly lit UN building sitting atop a hill and surrounded by a secure perimeter AND that had called in its location six times to the Israeli army to stop shelling it came from a US arsenal? Of course it did, but was it one of the rushed parcel of weapons as Bush stalled dimplomatic efforts? It’s really no wonder the US’ Arab allies, and the Iraqi prez, are fuming.

HG

Here’s one of the guys.
Not much info given on the specifics of their role at that post.


Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener

[quote]
His job, along with other international members of Observer Group Lebanon’s Team Sierra, was to report any violations of the now-abandoned ceasefire along the Lebanese-Israeli border.[/quote]

Shouldn’t matter where the bombs come from.

Well, its terribly tragic, all this blowing people up. Certainly not the ideal, IMO.

So, I ask, what should Israel do to protect its borders against those who lob bombs over willy nilly and who sometimes cross over into Israeli soil to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers?

What response would be appropriately proportionate?

I know for a fact that Israelis who have murdered Palestinians have been arrested, tried and convicted by the Israeli judicial system. I don’t think any Hizbollah members have been arrested, tried and convicted by the Palestinian or Hizbollah judicial system… would be difficult, as the murderers frequently blow themselves up when killing Israeli civilians.

I suppose that’s one difference.

When will the world act to disarm Hizbollah and Hamas? Surely you see the inherent unfairness in disarming one but not the others?

I ask again, what would be an appropriately proportionate response from Israel?