What the Israelis really think of the UN

[kalif]

the unifil wasnt sent to lebanon to enforce resolution 1559. it was sent to lebanon in 1978, based on resolution 425 to guard the withdrawal of israeli troops from lebanese territory.
but you are partialy right, unifil was back then ordered to help the lebanese government to regain authority.
but in detail that only means, that they are a kind of a referee. they shall report to the un who stepped over the lebanese/israeli border first in case of a combat. nothing more nothing less.
so all this talk of they didnt do their job right, so its their own fault they might die, is totall cynical bs, even from a factual point of view.
are you saying the same about american soldiers dying in iraq? i bet you dont..

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

The artcicle says...

I know what it says. It doesn't change the fact that the UN was sitting in southern Lebanon doing nothing for years and is now "particularly" upset that its own were caught in a crossfire. Why weren't they upset when Hezbollah made southern Lebanon their private country, with which to lob missiles at Israel? Oh right... They were too busy "observing".

 

[skadistic]

the un is "powerless" only because the obvious reason, is that it is very difficult to have some hundred something countries with different interests to agree to things/situations/ etc...

what happens now in the middle east is a result of the failure of the UN in trying to achieve a compromise between the state of israel and palestine

@skadistic

what you said is similiar to saying: a person affliated with gangs is attempting to shoot somebody else alos associated with gangs, but strikes an innocent bystander, well obviously its the bystanders fault for dying, because they should have known there are gangs in the area

or at least its smomewhat similiar

I'm saying if a cop gets shot in a gangland shot out while eating doughnuts in his car instead enforcing the laws that should have put the gangsters in jail its his own damn fault.

BUt that cops bosses are probaly to busy taking bribes to see to it that the cops do thier job like thier suposed to. Kinda like the UN.

 

[Leatherneck]

@skadistic

what you said is similiar to saying: a person affliated with gangs is attempting to shoot somebody else alos associated with gangs, but strikes an innocent bystander, well obviously its the bystanders fault for dying, because they should have known there are gangs in the area

or at least its smomewhat similiar

I'd agree with that, if go down to a known gangland area and there is a ACTIVE shoot out going on, you here the bullets, you see the explotions and you still go there, stay there etc. don't be surprised if you get shot. Once the war broke out Kofi Annan should have removed them from harms way, it's as much his failure as a leader as it is the Israeli for firing on them to which I believe it was an accident. But point is at the out break of war they should have been removed from the area, what are they doing at there post anyway, observing and being in harms way? Sadly friendly fire happens it happens in every war and that just the way it is, no one likes it, but it happens.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

So, clearly they deserved it.

Keep it up, fellow humans.

No, they were just stupid. Considering they were "military observers", they didn't catch on to the military situation right in front of them. As far as I am aware, when there's a war in your backyard, you usually run.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Is that what you would say to the dead peacekeeper's relatives? "It served them right!", "they have failed, and they were worthless!"

Absolutely. If you are too dumb to realize that you have to run when people are shooting past you and dropping bombs and missiles around you, especially if you claim to be military, you don't deserve sympathy. The UN should be held accountable for letting their own come to harm, but they can't be blameless. Did they think they had some kind of magical impervious armor and that no one would be able to harm them because they wore blue helmets?

 

[skadistic]

the unifil wasnt sent to lebanon to enforce resolution 1559. it was sent to lebanon in 1978, based on resolution 425 to guard the withdrawal of israeli troops from lebanese territory.
but you are partialy right, unifil was back then ordered to help the lebanese government to regain authority.
but in detail that only means, that they are a kind of a referee. they shall report to the un who stepped over the lebanese/israeli border first in case of a combat. nothing more nothing less.
so all this talk of they didnt do their job right, so its their own fault they might die, is totall cynical bs, even from a factual point of view.
are you saying the same about american soldiers dying in iraq? i bet you dont..

A UN soldiers job is to enforce any and all UN mandates that aply to his or hers area of operation. They were there and thier job was to enforce 1559 they failed.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Or perhaps that the Israel has no consquences to fear ??? Any sanction or action put towards the Israel will be vetoed by the daddy USA. Which made Israel unaccountable for its action.

If Israel has so little regard for the UN, it is because it has long realized that its actions are impotent. Its "resolutions" are nothing but text on paper.

Maybe its a warning shot, stay clear or get shot. Same scenerio when the Resistance in Iraq attacked the UN compound which was there to help.

Both dont want peace.

Considering you're a Civ player, you don't seem to understand military strategy well.

Fact is that there's no advantage to attacking a harmless 3rd party in the middle of a war in which you have to muster all your strength against your real enemy. In all likelihood, the UN post was hit accidentally, which is inevitable in any front.

The fact that the insurgents in Iraq attacked the UN in Baghdad suggests to me that they don't care for its help. The fact that they seem to be striking at just about everyone and everything, which have no connection to the occupation, or really much of any commonality, suggests to me that there is no centralization and no sense of strategy at all.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

It is not yet certain that they striked the UN outpost on purpose. It's likely, but not certain.

I personnally find it unlikely. 'Friendly fire' and 'collateral damage' are very common in combat. I suspect this is the case.

When US Marine Cobra gunships attack and destroy US Marine APCs in a staging area in broad daylight behind the current 'front', mistaking them for Iraqi APCs (happened in Iraq to name just one of many, many cases), I can certainly see an Israeli soldier lazing the wrong target either by accident (trying to laze a different target) or thinking it was an enemy location.

This conflict is tragic and I place on the blame on Hezbollah (and their backers).

 

[kalif]

A UN soldiers job is to enforce any and all UN mandates that aply to his or hers area of operation. They were there and thier job was to enforce 1559 they failed.

no, unifils job is not to disarm hezbollah, or guarding the withdrawal of the syrian army from lebanon. dont mix unifil with resolution 1559.
what do you think, why there are talks about a new "robust", stronger mandate for a un mission? because the recent mission neither has the capability/ressources, nor the order to disarm hizbollah! go and research it for yourself if you dont believe me and then pls stop with your claims and disdainfulness of un troops.
unifil is there to observe and report!

btw, who is saying the israelis did that on purpose? any source?

 

[skadistic]

no, unifils job is not to disarm hezbollah, or guarding the withdrawal of the syrian army from lebanon. dont mix unifil with resolution 1559.
what do you think, why there are talks about a new "robust", stronger mandate for a un mission? because the recent mission neither has the capability/ressources, nor the order to disarm hizbollah! go and research it for yourself if you dont believe me and then pls stop with your claims and disdainfulness of un troops.
unifil is there to observe and report!

btw, who is saying the israelis did that on purpose? any source?

So the UN soldiers job is not to enforce the UN mandates?

Koffi Annon is saying the Israelis targeted the post on purpose.

 

[shadow2k]

Annan said "apparently". He did not put forth any proof, and "apparently" is not 100% sure. I am in serious doubt of his state of mind when he'd make such an aggressive statement without being 100% proof positive of it. There are a lot of possible implications to that charge.

That being said...what possible motive would there be for Israel to target UN troops? Makes no sense.

 

[kalif]

until now, a unifil soldiers job is apparently not to enforce resolution 1559. i guess its the case, because the current mandate doesnt allow them to participate in combat, except self-defence. but obviously, to disarm hizbollah, violence cant be avoided.

thats why israel is quite disappointed with the un and imo its also an explanation -- and certain different topics -- why theres such a struggle between israel and the un in which annan gets overwhelmed by emotions...

 

[Ramius75]

If Israel has so little regard for the UN, it is because it has long realized that its actions are impotent. Its "resolutions" are nothing but text on paper.

One has to remember that the UN is but an organization, its actually made up of many different countries with volunteer from all over the world trying to make the place better for everyone. Not just the USA or Israel. One cannot just ride on the UN while its agreeding to the action (aka Korea war, sanction on North Korea, Iran etc etc) while slapping its face when the UN disagreed on.

While the USA uses it VETO to stop a cease fire when Israel is busy killing civilian in Lebanon. It is hoping to use the UN to slap sanction on North Korea and Iran for developing Nuclear weapons and testing missile. Double standard ??? U can bet on it. Justice and Law in the UN ? Not in the world politic.

Why the UN (aka rest of the world) tolerate the USA and Israel ?? Becoz it got the biggest guns around. Not becoz we really like u guys.

Considering you're a Civ player, you don't seem to understand military strategy well.

Fact is that there's no advantage to attacking a harmless 3rd party in the middle of a war in which you have to muster all your strength against your real enemy. In all likelihood, the UN post was hit accidentally, which is inevitable in any front.

The fact that the insurgents in Iraq attacked the UN in Baghdad suggests to me that they don't care for its help. The fact that they seem to be striking at just about everyone and everything, which have no connection to the occupation, or really much of any commonality, suggests to me that there is no centralization and no sense of strategy at all.

Actually, the terrorist attacking the UN and red cross is they are trying to undermining the peace process. They dont want Iraq to be peaceful. So that they can put the blame on USA and continue to wage war on the coalition.

Likewise, the Israel and USA dont want the UN to be part of the solution. They wanted their men in. Noticed how Tony Blair was put down and asking permission to come to Israel but was rejected by Bush ?? Noticed how the UN resolution was slapped down by the USA in the security council ?? Noticed how the USA said an immediate cease fire will not solved the situation while watching and allowing the Isealis to keep killing civilian in Lebanon ?

Annan, in a statement issued here on the eve of an international conference on the Lebanon crisis, described the strike on the border town of Khiam as a "coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly
marked UN post."

He said it took place "despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire."

"Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the UN Force Commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular UN position from
attack.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/221245/1/.html

The Israelis knows its there. The targetting is on purposed. This reminded me of the case where the Chinese embassy was attacked by USA with cruise missile in Kosovo.

 

[kalif]

well ramius, your news material is quite a hard accusation, but it has a point. didnt know all that. but theres still no reason, why this incident happened.
it still makes no sense, why this case had to happen, if it was on purpose.

 

[shadow2k]

While the USA uses it VETO to stop a cease fire when Israel is busy killing civilian in Lebanon..

The only resolution put forth for a vote on the situation was on July 13th, the one the US vetoed. That resolution was for a ceasefire with Palestine. The resolution was drawn up BEFORE Hezbollah attacked Israel on a second front.

The US vetoed it because they considered it outdated at that point. The US did not veto any ceasefire resolution regarding Lebanon. There has not been one drawn up and put for a vote.

 

[skadistic]

Maybe Israel did bomb the post on porpus because it was being used as launching platform for rockets. The UN is actively taking sides with hezbola.


I can come up with conspiacy theories too.

 

[shadow2k]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/221245/1/.html

The Israelis knows its there. The targetting is on purposed. This reminded me of the case where the Chinese embassy was attacked by USA with cruise missile in Kosovo.

Kofi said "apparently". He isn't sure. It's amazing how you can be 100% sure when the one tossing allegations isn't. There isn't even proof yet that it was definitely an Israeli bomb, let alone a deliberate and malicious attack meant to target them on purpose. If you have some proof outside of Kofi's "apparently" statement, please, by all means, put it forth...

Again, what possible motive would Israel have for purposely targeting UN troops? My take on it is Kofi is off his rocker at this point, because the UN failed at peace in that region, and he's upset that he lost four troops because of it. I think it's very likely that it was an Israeli shell, but I cannot see any reason at all why it would be deliberate.

 

[Ramius75]

well ramius, your news material is quite a hard accusation, but it has a point. didnt know all that. but theres still no reason, why this incident happened.
it still makes no sense, why this case had to happen, if it was on purpose.

of coz, there isnt any "concrete" proof that its deliberate. there never will be the truth also, likewise with so many war crimes happening right in our faces. The truth is out there, but i doubt it will even be found. Just like Kosovo embassy attack. The chinese can only keep their mouth shut and swallow the injustice if any.

@skadistic - if the UN is taking side, why u think they want to be there in the 1st place ? Human shield ?? There always some logics in some Conspiracy theory. If only one use some brain to think of one.

@shadow2k - like i said, one will never know whats happening. The UN cant do anything to the Israel, not even slapping sanction on it. The Israel will most probably getting away with this war anyway. After killing 300 or even more lebanese and destroy its infrastructure. The Rest of the world arent strong enough to take on USA yet both economically and militarily. but im sure such a day will come.

 

[Leatherneck]

The only resolution put forth for a vote on the situation was on July 13th, the one the US vetoed. That resolution was for a ceasefire with Palestine. The resolution was drawn up BEFORE Hezbollah attacked Israel on a second front.

The US vetoed it because they considered it outdated at that point. The US did not veto any ceasefire resolution regarding Lebanon. There has not been one drawn up and put for a vote.

You are correct! I bet I've read it a 1000 times on these various threads and in the foreign media that the US veto'd a cease fire with Lebanon/Hezbollah ... no wonder we (the US) get such a crappy image, people just start spouting with getting their facts straight.