Conflict: Israel and Lebanon part 3

[quote]PM wants to know why UN post manned
Calls deadly attack ‘terrible tragedy,’ says he doubts Israel did it on purpose
Jul. 26, 2006. 05:23 PM, CANADIAN PRESS

HOPEWELL CAPE, N.B. — Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Israel’s deadly attack on a UN observation post in Lebanon, which claimed the life of a Canadian soldier, was a “terrible tragedy” and he doubts whether the bombing was deliberate.

Harper, speaking to reporters after a funding announcement in eastern New Brunswick, said the Canadian military would consult with the UN and the Israeli government to find out what happened.

The prime minister also said he wants to know why the post was still manned even though it was in the middle of an obvious war zone.

Three other peacekeepers — from Austria, China and Finland — were killed when a bomb hit their post during a prolonged bombardment in the town Khiyam, near the eastern end of Lebanon’s border with Israel.
Toronto Star[/quote]

Resonable question on PM Harpers part.

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?[/quote]

Covert operations against Hizbollah using their equivalent of the SAS, and Mossad. I don’t have all the answers, unfortunately, but surely this current action is not a long-term solution no matter how satisfying it might be temporarily to be laying the smacketh down. They must know lots of Israelis are going to die in the reprisals, for one thing.

Conor Cruise O’Brien has a great book on the UN called, “United Nations: Sacred Drama,” in which he argues that the organization was designed to be seen to fail; to offer leaders a face saving means of doing nothing. Cited the example of Eisenhower calling on the Hungarians to rise up against the Soviets–which they did–and then having the choice of supporting them (at the risk of setting off WWIII) or leaving them out to hang. He shuffled the case over to the UN, where it became safe to bemoan the UN’s inability to act.

When will the world act? Who? How? Which part or organization? Which world org has the tools to undertake that job? Are you actually pulling for a world gov’t body with the means of pulling off that task? :idunno:

Israel has every right to root out Hezbollah guerillas.

What it doesn’t have the right to do is use terrorism against Lebanese civilians in order to turn them against Hezbollah. They’re no different than al Queda when they stoop to that level:

“. . . what the Israelis are doing today for example in Lebanon is in effect, in effect–maybe not in intent–the killing of hostages. The killing of hostages. Because when you kill 300 people, 400 people, who have nothing to do with the provocations Hezbollah staged, but you do it in effect deliberately by being indifferent to the scale of collateral damage, you’re killing hostages in the hope of intimidating those that you want to intimidate. And more likely than not you will not intimidate them. You’ll simply outrage them and make them into permanent enemies with the number of such enemies increasing.”
– Zbigniew Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski

:bravo: :bravo:

Isn’t his nickname “Joe?”

[quote]Israel has every right to root out Hezbollah guerillas.

What it doesn’t have the right to do is use terrorism against Lebanese civilians in order to turn them against Hezbollah. They’re no different than al Queda when they stoop to that level: quote]

Exactly. Lets not forget that the two previous Israeli invasions were the greatest recruting drives for Hezbollah.

HG

Since we’re cherry-picking Zhiggys’ speech and his outline of “What I’d reccomend we do”, here’s his wrap-up and ending.

[quote]“As far as Iran is concerned–and with this I’ll end–thanks to Iraq, I think we have made an offer to the Iranians that is reasonable. I do not know that Iranians have the smarts to respond favorably or at least not negatively. I sort of lean to the idea that they’ll probably respond not negatively but not positively and try to stall out the process. But that is not so bad provided they do not reject it. Because while the Iranian nuclear problem is serious, and while the Iranians are marginally involved in Lebanon and to a greater extent in Syria, the fact of the matter is that the challenge they pose to us, while serious, is not imminent. And because it isn’t imminent, it gives us time to deal with it. And sometimes in international politics, the better part of wisdom is to defer dangers rather than try to eliminate them altogether instantly, because the later produces intense counter-reactions that are destructive. We have time to deal with Iran, provided the process is launched, dealing with the nuclear energy problem, which can then be extended to involve also security talks about the region.
In the final analysis, Iran is a serious country, it’s not Iraq. It’s going to be there. It’s going to be a player. And in the longer historical term, it has all of the preconditions for a constructive internal evolution if you measure it by rates of literacy, access to higher education, the role of women in society, a sense of tradition and status which is real.
I’m convinced that the mullahs are part of the past in Iran, not its future. But that process can change in Iran, not in a confrontation but through engagement. I think if we pursue these policies, we can perhaps avert the dangers that we face but if we do not, [i]I fear that the region will explode, and for that matter, Israel will be in the long run in great jeopardy.[/i]
When we accept today’s realities, American pre-eminence in Middle East affairs is in danger and without correction, our primacy may last for a short duration.”[/quote]
emphasis added.
Spoken like a true diplomat on the rubber chicken circuit. :bravo: :bravo:

I doubt those would be effective.

Neither do I.

Agreed. But, I don’t think the Israelis are enjoying the smack down. They are suffereing casualties.

Damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. No?

TC, mind if I borrow that marker a mo’? Thanks.

[quote]I’m convinced that the mullahs are part of the past in Iran, not its future. But that process can change in Iran, not in a confrontation but through engagement. I think if we pursue these policies, we can perhaps avert the dangers that we face but if we do not, I fear that the region will explode, and for that matter, Israel will be in the long run in great jeopardy.
When we accept today’s realities, American pre-eminence in Middle East affairs is in danger and without correction, our primacy may last for a short duration."[/quote]

I like this man, who is he? Anyhow, what’s the relevance here?

HG

[quote=“spook”]Israel has every right to root out Hezbollah guerillas.

What it doesn’t have the right to do is use terrorism against Lebanese civilians in order to turn them against Hezbollah. They’re no different than al Queda when they stoop to that level…[/quote]

Does al Qaeda drop leaflets advising of military action to come and warning civilians to evacuate prior to attacking a location? I don’t think so. I think al Qaeda and Hamas and Hizbollah operate in the opposite manner. Israel did advise non-combattants and civilians to evacuate the targeted areas, did they not?

Look, this violence is horrible… I’m not arguing that its all honkey dorey. But, I think some of the criticisms of Israel are unfair.

And then gunned down convoys of fleeing refugees. Good thing Al Quaeda doesn’t have an air force or they might just try that trick too. :wink:

HG

I don’t think I am.

But, I’m tired of seeing certain nations do nothing, or worse, and then complain about the US and or the Israeli response to terrorism.

The world wants the UN to be respected, but, none of the nations championing the UN want to spend the money to fund it or to build military capability to lend to UN actions.

I think the Palestinians need a free and independent state. I think Israel needs to be able to live free from terrorism.

A Palestinian state is the answer, I think. But, unless the enemies of Israel stop terrorizing Israel, there will not be a Palestinian state.

I don’t see the world doing anything to push this in the right direction. Instead, i see a world that appears to accept terrorism against Israel while furiously condemning Israeli responses to the same.

All sides are guilty, to varying degrees. But giving lip service to Israel’s right to defend itself while sitting back and watching the terrorists prepare and commit acts of terrorism against Israel, and then supporting those terrorists morally and financially… I don’t see how anyone has the right to condemn Israel for blowing its top and “over-reacting” every x number of years…

The whole situation sucks… but nobody seems to want to do what is necessary to give peace a chance.

:bravo:

I really do think we all agree on that.

GHG

The publicity of blowing up a UN outpost is so bad that it’s hard to see the Israelis doing it on purpose, though the circumstances were pretty suspicious.
As shown in the picture posted by TC, Hizbullah deliberately builds bunkers as close as possible to UN positions, hoping for protection from Israeli reprisal (and also leading to tinfoil-hat-conspiracy suggestions that the UNFIL was co-operating with Hizbullah- sounds like a bad joke:- “A Chinese, a Canadian, an Austrian and a Finn walk into a Hizbullah bunker…”)

Anybody seen any reports as to how close Hizbullah was?

As to why they were still there- bureacratic inertia, reluctance to admit a failed mission, fear that leaving would be seen as a green light to total war…probably all of the above.

As I said before, if it was deliberate, it could have been a local thing- no love lost between the Israeli Army and UN peacekeepers- or (my own bit of tinfoil-hat-conspiracy) it could have been a message from the IDF to the Israeli government not to acquiesce too easily to foreign troops.

Some comparison here and some thoughts on hypocrisy:

[quote]Jonathan Gurwitz: Peacekeeper suggestions seem silly in the face of terrorism

About that disproportionate response, of which Israel is accused and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac is the chief European hand-wringer: Perhaps Chirac and his cohorts have forgotten the 77-day bombardment of Belgrade by NATO in 1999, the devastation of the Yugoslavian infrastructure and the immense collateral damage to civilian lives and property.

And that bombing campaign, in which French pilots played a crucial role, came after Serbian terrorists had crossed the Gallic frontier to kidnap how many gendarmes and after how many missiles fell on Paris? Sacré bleu!

It’s nice that the international community has taken such a profound interest in events surrounding Israel, if not literally within Israel — as when suicide bombers and Hamas rockets take their toll on civilians. But the hypocrisy and other-worldliness of the commentary are really too much.

Oh, those poor, innocent prisoners such as Samir Kuntar rotting away in Israeli prisons, allegedly snatched from Lebanon, for whose deserved freedom Hezbollah is valiantly fighting. Who is Samir Kuntar?

Smadar Haran Kaiser, writing in the Washington Post three years ago, described what happened to her husband, Danny, and her 4-year-old daughter, Einat, [b]when terrorists from Lebanon launched an attack on the northern Israeli town of Nahariya in 1979:

“As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl’s skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar[/b].”

Then there are the calls for diplomacy to end the violence. “Yes, a cease-fire,” the sophisticated set suggests. “Send Condi Rice and everyone will simply lay down their arms.”

“The simple reflexive action of asking for a cease-fire is not something that is really appropriate in a situation like this,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton dryly observed in an official statement. “How do you get a cease-fire with a terrorist organization? I’m not sure anybody’s done that before and I’m not sure it’s possible.”

And there’s the helpful suggestion of sending peacekeepers into the region. But as Michael Young, the opinion editor of Lebanon’s Daily Star, writes in Slate, 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," Young notes. "But this plan will go nowhere if Hezbollah retains its weapons and can fire its rockets against Israel while hiding behind the international peacekeepers.”

On Sept. 2, 2004, four years after the United Nations had certified Israel’s complete withdrawal from Lebanese territory, the Security Council passed Resolution 1559, which called 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."

Of course, the only thing more fickle than the international community’s commitment to help the Lebanese government achieve this goal is its selective sense of moral outrage. As the Security Council last week deliberated yet another resolution condemning Israel, Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman quoted Lebanon’s communication’s minister, who said, "Damascus gives the orders, Iran supplies the equipment, Israel reacts, and Lebanon is the victim."

And he quoted another official who said, “Hezbollah has not only kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, it has taken the whole of Lebanon hostage.”

[b]Then he addressed his Lebanese colleague at the United Nations:

"Your Excellency, you know deep down that if you could, you would add your own brave voice to those voices of your brave compatriots and colleagues. You know deep in your heart that if you could, you would be sitting here right next to me right now because you know that we are doing the right thing and that if we succeed, Lebanon will be the beneficiary.

“And I believe that most members around this table, as well as many in this chamber, including our neighbors, realize this reality[/b].” [/quote]

mysanantonio.com/opinion/sto … 98e6e.html

I hope he’s right.

flinched from here NSFW

Oh, I see JD, it’s time to post the emmotive chicanery . . . let me have a looky here under my crimes against Arab innocents file . . .

Nah, actually I don’t think it’s very fruitful dragging a debate to that level. It’s all there should you choose to see the ‘others’ as people too.

HG

I agree, but what about those that have outgrown the united efforts of the UN, what do we do about them? If they don’t want to play or pay, then there’s not much the rest of us can do, is there?

[quote]US debt to the UN, from 1995 to 2005 Year Regular budget Peacekeeping Total
31 December 1995 $414 million (73%) $816 million (47%) $1.231 billion (56%)
31 December 1996 $376 million (74%) $926 million (57%) $1.303 billion (61%)
31 December 1997 $373 million (79%) $940 million (60%) $1.313 billion (64%)
31 December 1998 $316 million (76%) $976 million (61%) $1.294 billion (64%)
31 December 1999 $167 million (68%) $995 million (67%) $1.170 billion (67%)
31 December 2000 $165 million (74%) $1.144 billion (56%) $1.321 billion (58%)
31 December 2001 $165 million (69%) $691 million (38%) $871 million (41%)
31 December 2002 $190 million (62%) $536 million (40%) $738 million (44%)
31 December 2003 $268 million (61%) $482 million (45%) $762 million (48%)
31 December 2004 $241 million (68%) $722 million (28%) $975 million (33%)
30 September 2005 $607 million (82%) $607 million (28%) $1.246 billion (41%) [/quote]

I’ve been pondering the bombing of that UN observer post and for the life of me I couldn’t understand why the Israelis would do that. Then of course it dawned on me. It was an observer post, it’s role is to observe and report. Could it be that Israel wants to shutdown the eyes of the world while it sorts out a situation? Israel has a brief window and it aims to use it, sod human rights. Bombing one post, which they can readily claim as a result of the fog of war has in effect shut down all UN posts. The UN are out of there. Now they can do their beastly best.

Same game.

HG

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]I agree, but what about those that have outgrown the united efforts of the UN, what do we do about them? If they don’t want to play or pay, then there’s not much the rest of us can do, is there?

[quote]US debt to the UN, from 1995 to 2005 Year Regular budget Peacekeeping Total
31 December 1995 $414 million (73%) $816 million (47%) $1.231 billion (56%)
31 December 1996 $376 million (74%) $926 million (57%) $1.303 billion (61%)
31 December 1997 $373 million (79%) $940 million (60%) $1.313 billion (64%)
31 December 1998 $316 million (76%) $976 million (61%) $1.294 billion (64%)
31 December 1999 $167 million (68%) $995 million (67%) $1.170 billion (67%)
31 December 2000 $165 million (74%) $1.144 billion (56%) $1.321 billion (58%)
31 December 2001 $165 million (69%) $691 million (38%) $871 million (41%)
31 December 2002 $190 million (62%) $536 million (40%) $738 million (44%)
31 December 2003 $268 million (61%) $482 million (45%) $762 million (48%)
31 December 2004 $241 million (68%) $722 million (28%) $975 million (33%)
30 September 2005 $607 million (82%) $607 million (28%) $1.246 billion (41%) [/quote][/quote]

I am not, and many, if not most Americans, do not champion the UN. I wish it would get out of the US and move elsewhere. In case you aren’t certain, I believe the UN is a worthless shit of an organization. Worse, it sometimes does harm (Oil for medicine & food).

Yes, the US “owes” money to the UN. I hope we never pay it. We pay lots more than most, if not everyone else, and for what? Those dues are not the only way that the UN gets funded.

And what do you mean the rest of yous can’t do nuthin’ just because the US owes. Get to work if you want the UN to work. The US is but one member of the UN. Moreover, Europe can stop supporting the terrorists.

[quote][url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-garton27jul27,0,3863254.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail]Does it follow that Europeans have a special obligation to get involved in trying to secure a peace settlement in which the state of Israel can live in secure frontiers next to a viable Palestinian state? I think it does. Even if you don’t accept this argument from historical and moral responsibility, Europe’s vital interests are plainly at stake: oil, nuclear proliferation and the potential reaction among our alienated Muslim minorities, to name but three.

It’s less clear what that involvement should be. One proposal is for European forces to participate in a multinational peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, but that only makes sense if realistic parameters are established for a clear, feasible and finite mission. Those are not yet in sight. Even a cease-fire is not yet in sight.

The truth is that, now more than ever, the diplomatic key lies in the full engagement of the U.S., using its influence with Israel and negotiating as directly as possible with all partners to the conflict, however unsavory. Until that happens, Europe alone can do little.

Yet the issue here is not just changing the realities on the ground in the Middle East. How Europeans speak and write about the position of the Jews in the region to which Europeans drove them is also a matter of our own self-definition. We should weigh every word.[/url][/quote]

Speculation… and anyway, not a very effective way to shut out the world looking on.

Human rights always get sodded during wars.

I’m sure the media still has eyes… and I’m sure Hizbollah will be happy to show the media all of the horrible acts committed by the Israelis. And I’m certain the media will be happy to show and report all the horrors and crimes committed by Israel.

[quote]I am not, and many, if not most Americans, do not champion the UN. I wish it would get out of the US and move elsewhere. In case you aren’t certain, I believe the UN is a worthless shit of an organization. Worse, it sometimes does harm (Oil for medicine & food).

Yes, the US “owes” money to the UN. I hope we never pay it. We pay lots more than most, if not everyone else, and for what? Those dues are not the only way that the UN gets funded. [/quote]

That’s right, but without your acquiescence, since your country happens to be the richest and most powerful on the planet and the combined entity sans the US still doesn’t equate to it, there is no way of obtaining the sort of organisation championed in the oriiginal idea of a league of nations. Since the world is left to rely on American largesse, please don’t come bitching to me about being the global cop.

Fortunately, thus far, the Americans have acted, at least for the most part, in my favour. I am grateful. But what happens should China suddenly eclipse the US in the way the US suddenly eclipsed the rest of the world? Projected growth for China in the coming 100 years is eerily similar to the rapid rise of the US and the trumping of the likes of the UK. What when China is the globocop/aid donor?

I’m the first to agree. It is pure speculation, but with the evidence on hand, it makes sense.

Hezbolleh are not an independent witness, no matter how you look at it. See what truck Palestinian medical professionals have obtained in arguing Israelis have fired on their ambulances and medical services, for example. No one gives a toss because the Israelis have maintained they were used to advance military objectives. I was a medical professional and frankly I believe the Palestinians. You do not fuck around when you are the only lifeline to a civilian population which includes your own families.

HG