Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah Crisis Thread was the "Is Israel right" thread

Morlar

metrovelvet wrote:

But where does the money come from? Who's footing the bill?

I found this which says:

The UNIFIL operation has an annual operating budget of $99.3 million, approximately one quarter of which (as with all U.N. operations) is paid by the American taxpayer

I cant find who is paying for the other 3/4ths.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2UxZjI3MTRhNGM5YTc1MDkyM2NkZmVhZjdiYzUzODU=

I think its paid for by the countries who participate in the peacekeeping misions, ie if europe/eu put together a peacekeeping force and send it there then the participating european/eu countries would be paying hundreds of millions if not billions to secure israel's borders indefinitely. To my knowledge israel has no intention of even contributing financially to securing her borders. (open to correction on that).

NeverSayDie

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm not ignoring it, I'm questioning the policy which has obviously been in place for a year plus and has been known to be dangerous, by the UN's own report.

UNIFIL does have weapons in its armouries, unless something has drastically changed in the last year or two. The fact that the UN OP in question was unarmed leads to the following question.

Why on Earth were they unarmed in the first place? If UNIFIL as a monitoring force was deemed worthy of having armoured cars, heavy machineguns, anti-tank weapons and so on, why have an OP way up top of a hill with nothing? A very fundamental rule of neutrality is that if you are unable or unwilling to enforce your own neutrality, you run an inherent risk of being swept into an action against your will. This applies equally at the ground level as at international level.


Conversation at IDF HQ, my guess.

"Yes, Irish Colonel. I will immediately tell our soldiers to stop shelling the UN OP"
(On radio)
"Any units currently shelling an OP at grid 123456 are to immediately stop."
"This is Unit Alpha. It's not us! We're shelling Hezbullah at grid 123457"
"Oh. OK. Carry on."

NTM

Manic, to the best of my knowledge those unarmed personnel were attached to UNTSO, an observer mission. UNIFIL is the peacekeeping mission, their personnel are armed. Last I heard, the UNTSO OPs have recently been evacuated and the observers pulled back to the UNIFIL positions.

Manic Moran

NeverSayDie wrote:

Manic, to the best of my knowledge those unarmed personnel were attached to UNTSO, an observer mission. UNIFIL is the peacekeeping mission, their personnel are armed. Last I heard, the UNTSO OPs have recently been evacuated and the observers pulled back to the UNIFIL positions.

You are correct on all counts.

The stupidity of the policy of not enforcing one's own neutrality, combined with the redundancy of multiple missions in the same location including one which is armed remain the same, however. UNTSO dates back to 1948. What is the benefit of having 50 unarmed UN persons doing a rather redundant 60-year-old mission, when there are a couple of thousand armed ones also wandering around who fly the same flag?

NTM

The Saint

QUOTE=Manic Moran]You are correct on all counts.

The stupidity of the policy of not enforcing one's own neutrality, combined with the redundancy of multiple missions in the same location including one which is armed remain the same, however. UNTSO dates back to 1948. What is the benefit of having 50 unarmed UN persons doing a rather redundant 60-year-old mission, when there are a couple of thousand armed ones also wandering around who fly the same flag?

NTM[/QUOTE]
This is what John Sipson has to say about the mandate of UNIFIL:

Unifil (UN Interim Force in Lebanon) has been stationed in southern Lebanon for 28 years, but the great powers prevented its having any serious mandate. As a result it has had to stand by helplessly and watch while groups attack Israel from Lebanon and Israeli forces fire across the border or invade.

From this I'd condlude that the mandate was probably given by the (great powers) Security Council rather than by the UN itself. Just checked and UNIFIL was created and given its mandate under UNSC resolution 425 in 1978. So if people want to complain about the mandate they can blame the permanent members of the SC (except USSR who abstained).

Seems the Israelis accidentally hit another fleeing civilian convoy:

Two mortar rounds have hit a convoy of vehicles carrying civilians escaping the violence in southern Lebanon.

The BBC's Jim Muir, who was with the convoy, said two people - a driver and a television cameraman in a German television car - were wounded when the rounds exploded next to their vehicle.

The convoy, organised by the Australian embassy, was returning to the port city of Tyre from the border village of Rmeish, where hundreds of people have been trapped by the Israeli offensive.

Our correspondent says the cars were clearly marked as a press and civilian convoy, and that individual journalists had been in contact with the Israelis who knew about the journey.

A BBC security adviser travelling in a car behind the German television car said he believed the mortar rounds had been fired from the Israeli side.

cik

more stunning context from UN reports from 20th July

Some Hizbollah positions remained in close proximity to United Nations positions, especially in the Hula area, posing a significant security risk to United Nations personnel and equipment, as demonstrated during the heavy exchanges of fire on 28 May. In letters to the Foreign Minister, dated 23 March, 27 June and 5 July 2006, the Force Commander, General Pellegrini, expressed grave concern about the Hizbollah construction works in close proximity to United Nations positions and requested that the Government of Lebanon take necessary actions to rectify the situation. However, the situation remained unchanged despite repeated objections addressed by UNIFIL to the Lebanese authorities. UNIFIL observed the reconstruction of Hizbollah positions that were damaged or destroyed during the 28 May exchange of fire.

http://documents.un.org/welcome.asp?language=E

The Saint

We know that Hezbollah operate around UN position but this does still not explain what happened in this instance.

Sgt. Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

I know the UN in Lebanon has weapons. I've seen them. Why they didn't use them to enforce their own neutrality is beyond me.

NTM

I don't think 4 guys could have done much against the IDF forces that attacked them no matter how well equipped they were. Do you think the UN should be able to call in airstrikes to defend themselves against attacks from artillery and armour?

cik

The Saint wrote:

We know that Hezbollah operate around UN position but this does still not explain what happened in this instance.

it hasnt been accepted by many posters on this thread than Hezbollah operate around UN positions - effectively using them for cover, in fact I was slated for suggesting it was even a possibility in this instance and that such an idea was 'pathetic'

cik

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Do you think the UN should be able to call in airstrikes to defend themselves against attacks from artillery and armour?

do you think they shouldnt?

Manic Moran

No, I meant to enforce their own neutrality by preventing Hezbullah from using UN locations as a position from which to engage in combat with the Israelis. Though yes, I can see cases where UN forces could do with the ability to call in airstrikes. It would have done nicely in some Bosnian situations, for example.

NTM

Hobbes

UN Observers are unarmed. You are thinking of UN Peace keepers who are in fact armed.

"Yes, Irish Colonel. I will immediately tell our soldiers to stop shelling the UN OP"
(On radio)
"Any units currently shelling an OP at grid 123456 are to immediately stop."
"This is Unit Alpha. It's not us! We're shelling Hezbullah at grid 123457"
"Oh. OK. Carry on."

I am pretty sure if someone used that as an excuse in a court martial hearing it wouldn't cut any slack.

Slainte70

zen63 wrote:

The private homes are another matter, but I place the root blame for this on Hezbollah for 'embedding' with normal citizens. I also blame UNIFIL for completely failing to remove the threat of these missiles from the south, and to oust Hezbollah when Israel left. Let’s not forget, without Hezbollah this war would not be happening, and no one would be dying - can you at least agree on that?

This whole mess would never have happened if the UN lived up to its promises.I blame Kofi Annan and the UN for sitting on their collective arses for the past six years letting Hezbollah dig tunnels all over the Southern border, letting them bring thousands of rockets and missiles via Syria from Iran and not implementing Resolution 1559…none of this would have happened had they lived up to their promise to the Lebanese and Israeli people to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah.

Yet they send unarmed UN soldiers to observe…those poor soldiers are sitting ducks in a war-zone. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that Hezbollah would use them as human shields so as to get high impact appalled reaction from the international community towards Israel if God forbid they were killed.

On a final note, it is a pity the UN didn't observe the mass influx of rockets and missiles over the Syrian border for the past six years.

Morlar

Slainte70 wrote:

This whole mess would never have happened if the UN lived up to its promises.I blame Kofi Annan and the UN

I blame the israeli military.

The Saint

cik wrote:

it hasnt been accepted by many posters on this thread than Hezbollah operate around UN positions - effectively using them for cover, in fact I was slated for suggesting it was even a possibility in this instance and that such an idea was 'pathetic'

Yes, but as I said, it doesn't explain why this happened. It's not the first time Israel has bombed UN positions in Lebanon for the same reason given this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_shelling

Hobbes

cik wrote:

more stunning context from UN reports from 20th July

The link you posted was wrong. Its.

http://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/437/22/img/N0643722.pdf?OpenElement

Its an interesting read and while your piece you took out is in the document I don't see anything in it justifying an attack on a UN compound.

Also lists how a load of other people were killed.

Sgt. Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

No,

NTM

Under what circumstances should the UN be allowed to use all necessary force to defend themselves from attack in south Lebanon? Should they be allowed respond to attacks from precision guided bombs for example?

The Saint

Slainte70 wrote:

This whole mess would never have happened if the UN lived up to its promises.I blame Kofi Annan and the UN for sitting on their collective arses for the past six years letting Hezbollah dig tunnels all over the Southern border, letting them bring thousands of rockets and missiles via Syria from Iran and not implementing Resolution 1559…none of this would have happened had they lived up to their promise to the Lebanese and Israeli people to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah.

Yet they send unarmed UN soldiers to observe…those poor soldiers are sitting ducks in a war-zone. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that Hezbollah would use them as human shields so as to get high impact appalled reaction from the international community towards Israel if God forbid they were killed.

On a final note, it is a pity the UN didn't observe the mass influx of rockets and missiles over the Syrian border for the past six years.

I see you failed to read the post I made about this earlier. The UNIFIL mandate was given by the UNSC, not Koffi Annan and not the UN itself. To do what you suggested would violate their mandate and would therefore be illegal. If there was a peace making mandate put in place byt he SC then yes, the soldiers could take action against Hezbollah but the mandate that they were given by the US, Great Britain, France and China didn't allow for this.

The UN can't just make the Lebanese enforce Resolution 1559. It has no mandate to enforce it. If the SC gave it a mandate in the resolution and the UN still did nothing you'd have a point. Currently you don't. It was up to the Lebanese government to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah which it was unwilling (due to the probability if they tried there would have been another civil war) or more probably unable to do (due to Hezbollahs support and military strength and a piss poor Lebanese army).

Sgt. Sensible

Hobbes wrote:

Here is a list of what IDF have destroyed to date. Feel free to find some reason as to how destroying these stops rocket attacks

Beirut International Airport
Qaleiat domestic Airport
Rayak military Airport

Beirut Port
Tripoli Port
Jounieh Port

Beirut Lighthouse

Bridges: 62
Fuel stations: 22
Overpasses: 72
Dams: 3
Roads: 600km

Lebonese Military
Radar installations: 4
Army barracks: 1

Civilian
Private homes: 5,000

Commercial
Tissue paper factory, Bekaa
Bottle factory, Bekaa
Other businesses: 150

Communications
Hezbollah's al-Manar TV station, Haret Hreik, Beirut
MTC mobile phone antenna, Dahr al-Baidar
Utilities
Jiyeh power plant
Sibline power station
Sewage plant, Dair al-Zahrani

People dead
425 Lebenese (confirmed, estimates are higher) Of that around 100 or less are actual Hizbollah and a large number of those are children.
51 Israelis, 18 of those civilians.

Where did you find that list Hobbes?

Doh! Found it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/5218106.stm

Slainte70

The Saint wrote:

I see you failed to read the post I made about this earlier.

Sorry about Saint...due to siren alerts of katyusha rockets fired from our friendly Hezbollah folk up in Lebanon...I'm popping in and out of the bomb shelter like a feckin' yoyo and consequently I unintentionally miss some posts.

The Saint

Slainte70 wrote:

Sorry about Saint...due to siren alerts of katyusha rockets fired from our friendly Hezbollah folk up in Lebanon...I'm popping in and out of the bomb shelter like a feckin' yoyo and consequently I unintentionally miss some posts.

No problem. Be safe. Don't let the terrorists get you down.

Manic Moran

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Under what circumstances should the UN be allowed to use all necessary force to defend themselves from attack in south Lebanon? Should they be allowed respond to attacks from precision guided bombs for example?

I would personally say 'yes', though you have some difficulties of the practicalities of the matter. The IAF are flying higher than portable anti-aircraft systems can reach, and communications to larger systems which could reach would be such that it would be difficult to ensure that only the correct aircraft is being engaged. Someone sneaking up to your fence and shooting at someone else thus providing them with a reason to be lobbing munitions in your vicinity is much more easily dealt-with by the low-tech basis of a 7.62mm MG.

As an aside, there are systems which are designed to defend point locations against incoming munitions. US bases in Iraq are equipped, for example, with modified versions of the Phalanx CIWS to destroy incoming mortar rounds, gravity bombs should be just as targettable. They don't always work, but it's better than nothing.

NTM

Sgt. Sensible

Manic Moran wrote:

I would personally say 'yes', though you have some difficulties of the practicalities of the matter.

No, I understand the difficulties, but it would be reasonable to hit ground forces and infrastructure in response to precision airstrikes. The response should be measured and proportionate of course.

Slainte70

Morlar wrote:

The European Union does not list Hezbollah as a "terrorist organization"

Why am I not surprised by the above fact?! Un(bloody)believable!

Hobbes

Slainte70 wrote:

Why am I not surprised by the above fact?! Un(bloody)believable!

Only 6 countries in the world reconise them as a terrorist organisation. 2 of those not even fully a terrorist organisation.

Heres some other facts about the EU.

• Imad Mugniyah (Hizbollah's senior Intelligence officer) is listed as a terrorist in the EU.
• The EU is supporting measures to stop Hizbollahs terrorist activities (since 2005, 473-8, 3 abstensions)
• Al-Manar TV station is banned in the EU.

Hobbes

They just had a US muslim family on TV being interviewed. They can't leave the country. They have been told to leave the town but as soon as they got to thier car they fired at and a neighbour was killed when his car blew up. Also even if they could leave they have no where to go as the US rescue ship hasn't been able to dock.

hmmm

If you lived in Israel, and a group (terrorist or local militia or whatever term you want to use) lobs the occasional rocket into your city every few days killing a few people, what would you suggest you should do? Live with it as a hazard of city life? Lob a missile or two back (oh oh might kill civilians). Negotiate with them? (remember, their stated opening position is they want Israel destroyed).

Sgt. Sensible

BBC

For people in Tyre the most terrifying noise is not the shelling a few kilometres away, but the whine of the all-seeing drones flying overhead, relaying potential targets back to Israel with pinpoint accuracy.

Medical officials say most of the casualties brought in have been civilians trying to flee their bombarded villages in the south who were then attacked on the roads.

In the villages themselves, injured people have been left to die because ambulance crews have been targets of bombing too. Two ambulances this week were hit within minutes of each other, one rocket hitting the Red Cross like a bullseye, witnesses said.

Boston.com

Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon said the Israeli air force must bomb villages before ground forces enter, suggesting this would help prevent Israeli casualties in the future.

Asked whether entire villages should be flattened, he said: "These places are not villages. They are military bases in which Hezbollah people are hiding and from which they are operating . . ."

"What we need to activate in south Lebanon is tremendous firepower before ground forces enter," he said. "Our great advantage against Hezbollah is firepower, not hand-to-hand combat."

If people try to flee, they get attacked, if they stay put, they're going to get flattened. What was that about trying to avoid civilian casualties?

Hobbes

hmmm wrote:

If you lived in Israel, and a group (terrorist or local militia or whatever term you want to use) lobs the occasional rocket into your city every few days killing a few people, what would you suggest you should do? Live with it as a hazard of city life? Lob a missile or two back (oh oh might kill civilians). Negotiate with them? (remember, their stated opening position is they want Israel destroyed).

You make a good point except for the fact that rather then attacking the problem Isreal have gone out and destroyed the whole infrastructure of another country and bombed civilians men/women and children as collective punishment.

Whatever actions where required to fight terrorism this is not one of them.

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote:

No, I meant to enforce their own neutrality by preventing Hezbullah from using UN locations as a position from which to engage in combat with the Israelis. Though yes, I can see cases where UN forces could do with the ability to call in airstrikes. It would have done nicely in some Bosnian situations, for example.

NTM

heh, it would have to be backed up by some SERIOUS power if UN started calling in air strikes against the IDF everytime it decided to take pot shots at it

redspider

clown bag wrote:

has anyone else notice how the destruction of the U.N. post appears to be getting a much wider condemnation and much more outrage when compared with the slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Looks like the old cliche is true, Middle Eastern lives are worth a lot less than western lives in the eyes of western commentators.

Yes, I noticed that too. My moral 'compass' equates everybody's lives on this planet as equal. However, not everyone thinks this way, especially people of one half of warring peoples. But most of people are guilty of that approach, local lives mean more than distant ones.

On another point, I find the rhetoric coming back from Bush to be most distasteful, talking about Hezbollah started it, etc. If there were two 5-yr olds fighting in the playground and one said that the teacher would stop both of them, not encourage/allow one of them to hit the other one back.

Oh, and there's a dog in the schoolyard too .... "c'mere Blair" .... mind you, the dog is the only other thing getting petted in the schoolyard at the moent and is relishing the attention and world-brokering it is getting !

Redspider