| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/24 |
| 2006/8/27-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:44168 Activity:moderate |
8/27 The UN provided real-time information about IDF troop movements during
the Israeli-Hizbullah conflict:
http://csua.org/u/grz
\_ So they're comparing tanks rolling into a neighborhood vs. rockets
were fired from all over.. Large tank movements are:
a) not secret
b) much bigger news than individual of hundreds (thousands?) of
rockets fired in a day
\_ You didn't read the link. Try again.
\_ I did. Let's see:
"Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant
reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel
carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras
inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area
north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun."
vs. (note they didn't give _actual_ quotes, just "to the
effect of" ones for Hezbollah reports, but nonetheless:)
Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various
locations" What are they supposed to say for Hezbollah? They
aren't acting as a regular military.
\_ Maybe they shouldn't have been revealing IDF positions?
\_ Maybe IDF should have pressed the U.S. to force the
UN not to post the info, unless the IDF thought they
would steamroller Hezbollah in any case.
\_ Way to go. Nice way to blame the victim. While
we're on the topic, let's talk about UN neutrality,
like watching Hazbollah kidnap Israelis over the
border and stalling for nine months before turning
over a simple video tape of the incident. Obviously
it is the Israeli's fault for not asking the US to
pressure the UN to turn over the tapes. Israel later
traded hundreds of known killers for the 3 bodies.
\_ victim? hmm... let me see, over 1000 lebanonese
civilian dead, 10,000 wounded, one million out of
four million plus were displaced. Jesus, why
UN is not on Israeli's side? Why don't UN
set up some sort of final solution?
\_ Here's a good case of "context" being the
victim. Anyway, I was going to give a real
reply until you went all trollish looking for
a "final solution". You're not interested in
a real discussion.
\_ I think any notion of having a "real
discussion" is out of windows when you
decided that Lebanonese got what they
deserved.
\_ Sorry, you already tripped the troll
meter earlier. Maybe next time.
\_ No one said anything like that about
the Lebanese.
\_ How precisely can you tell which people were
"innocent" civilians and which were Hizbullah?
\_ How precisely can you tell which people were
"terrorist" Hizbullah and which were
civilians?
\_ The ones not wearing uniforms are
civilians.
\_ you do know hezbollah doesn't wear
uniforms?
\_ Yes but they wave goofy green flags,
don't shave, and carry AK-47s. And
they're usually yelling about
something or other. -John
\_ IDF was the victim of the UN?
\_ You read the link?
\_ Yes. IDF was the victim of the UN?
\_ It wasn't?
\_ Who cares. If I read this right, the entire Israeli
military strategy is doomed. Hezbollah has spent the last 6 years
building tank traps, kill zones, and entrenched bunkers in
civilian zones. There is no fucking way moving tanks in
there is going to help. Hezbollah has figured out how
to kill Israel's overblown invulnerable tank. Israel needs
\_ Um, yes, by using Syrian anti-tank
missiles.
\_ Russian/Iranian/cheap made-in-China
crap
\_ The Russian stuff certainly
isn't crap. The Iranian stuff
is a home-built version of the
Russian weapon. I don't know
what the Chinese are making but
I doubt it's crap either.
\_ They were 2-stage explosives to
defeat the reactive armor. They
weren't crap.
to figure out how to combat guerilla warfare or just flatten
the place and quit fooling with tanks.
\_ They know how to fight house to house, they've been doing it for
years. Fighting kills civilians. Or in this case "civilians".
"Killing civilians" is bad PR for a press that loathes the
Israelis and hates their own culture while praising a bunch of
"never left the 8th century" lunatics and painting them as
victims.
\_ You're talking about American and European press, not Israeli
press, right?
\_ Like any free society, there are some self haters in the
Israeli press too.
\_ Hezbollah fights in a very typical gurilla fashion. Gurilla
units can not operate without local population's support.
Prior to Israeli's massive, disportionate attack, the
local population was actually gotten sick and tire of
Hezbollah and call for disarm was in the air. It's kind of
ironic that Israels has rallied the population behind
Hezbollah. And for the first time, Saudi is considering
providing aids to this otherwise Shiite organization.
WAY TO GO!
\_ Oh really? That's why Hezbollah was getting elected to
office? How about a link backing your unfounded assertion
that there was a meaningful disarm-hezbollah movement in
Lebanon with the power to do it.
\_ there weren't "movement." but there were calls to
disarm Hezbollah within Lebanon, arguing that Hezbollah
has served its purpose and should be either disbanded
or absorbed into Lebanonese government.
\_ back pedal, no links, no references, no names, no
dates. thanks for participating today.
\_ How is Saudi going to give AIDS to Hezbollah, via sex or
a blood transfusion?
\_ Transfusion.
\_ Damn. I was hoping it would be through sex and
that we could all watch. I wonder who would be on
top.
\_ That would not be an acceptable method of aids
transmission as per the Koran. Your suggestion is
humiliating and in violation of Sharia. You shall
now be stoned to death.
\_ Not on that, your female family members shall now
be legally gang-raped by men including those
carrying AIDS.
\_ It's not ironic at all. If a "call for disarm" was actually
in the air, then that's _why_ Hezbollah attacked now.
\_ Except there wasn't a "call for disarm". Hezbollah was
caught off guard by the Israeli attack. They expected
the standard "swap dead Israelis for live Hezbollah
terrorists" deal they've got in the past.
\_ Hezbollah was caught off guard, but it end up winning
the war in the sense that it is politically stronger
after the attack and any voice to call for disband
or disarm within Lebanon is completely silenced.
\_ there were no voices of any note to disarm
hezbollah in Lebanon. they have been funded and
armed by Syria and Iran for years. their
overwhelming military resources make them immune
to any bogus 'calls to disarm' from anyone with
fewer soldiers or less will power. this entire
line about "hezbollah would've disarmed if only
those bad jews hadn't disproportionately defended
themselves" is a complete fabrication.
\_ my quick take. UNFIL is supposed to report on Israeli troop
movements out of Lebanon. That's what they were there for. Did
anyone ask them to stop? Also, first random publication I tried
on the UNFIL website:
"It was reported that Hezbollah fired mortar rounds from the
vicinity of three UNFIL positions in the area of Tibnin, Hariss, and
At Tiri."
\_ aka: Don't blow us up while shooting at those guys we were
supposed to make sure disarmed 6 years ago instead of using us
as willing human shields.
\_ maybe israelis should hang out near UNFIL since they seem to
have a bunch of hezbollah around. And this shows that doesn't
mesh with the claim that it was never more precise than
'Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger
numbers from various locations" are as precise as its
coverage of the other side ever got.'
Also, UNFIL was never chartered to disarm Hezbollah.
\_ http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/mandate.html
How does point 3 and a well armed Hezbollah fit together?
Anyway, go read the background page at
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html and
you'll see the same phrase over and over through out the
document stating that the UN has asked the Lebanese
government to take control in the south and they refused
to do so. What kind of real government refuses to take
control of their own country? What are governments for if
they're not in charge of the territory they're supposed to
be *governing*? The government was complicit in the build
up of Hezbollah, the UN watched it happen and did nothing,
the Israelis suffered. Here's a choice line: "On several
occasions, Hizbollah personnel restricted the freedom of
movement of UNIFIL and interfered with its redeployment."
Keep in mind this is a UN report about itself. This is as
sugar coated as it can get.
sugar coated as it can get. Oh here's another good one,
"The Secretary-General also remained concerned about the
restriction of movement on UNIFIL personnel, who must be
able to carry out their mandate. In the most serious
incident, on 4 April, about 15 Hezbollah personnel forced
an Observer Group Lebanon patrol south-west of Kafr Shuba
to stop at gunpoint and assaulted the observers with rifle
butts, injuring three, one seriously." So why did the UN
continue to allow this sort of thing and do nothing about
it? This is not only directly contrary to the UNIFIL
mandate in the region, it is a death sentence waiting to
happen. Did they think Hezbollah was going to peacefully
disarm at some point as these sorts of events escalated?
What did the UN do to Hezbollah to deserve this? As we
know, all victims of Middle Eastern thugs have done
something to earn their abuse and deaths.
\_ I still see nothing that authorizes UNFIL to do any
such disarmament. Yes, the UN has failed to provide
sufficient strength if they were going to undertake
such a mission. Yes, the UN has failed to provide
enough pressure on Lebanon. However, it is has not
been in the mandate to disarm Hezbollah. The
resolutions involved clearly state that this is the
Lebanese government's responsibility. The 2000 or so
troops authorized for this prior to this latest
flare-up was hardly sufficient to attempt to do so.
\_ You're nitpicking a diplomatic document. Mandate #3
is impossible without disarming Hezbollah. |
| 5/24 |
|
| csua.org/u/grz -> www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12622&R=ED9C1015 WARNING: The page you have accessed is dependent on JAVASCRIPT which is not supported by your browser. Due to this limitation, you may experience unexpected results within this site. by Lori Lowenthal Marcus 09/04/2006, Volume 011, Issue 47 DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, UN "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon. UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old. Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got. This war was fought on cable television and the Internet, and a lot of official information was available in real time. But the specific military intelligence UNIFIL posted could not be had from any non-UN source. The Israeli press--always eager to push the envelope--did not publish the details of troop movements and logistics. Neither the European press nor the rest of the world media, though hardly bastions of concern for the safety of Israeli troops, provided the IDF intelligence details that UNIFIL did. A search of Israeli government websites failed to turn up the details published to the world each day by the UN Inquiries made of various Israeli military and government representatives and analysts yielded near unanimous agreement that at least some of UNIFIL's postings, in the words of one retired senior military analyst, "could have exposed Israeli soldiers to grave danger." These analysts, including a current high ranking military official, noted that the same intelligence would not have been provided by the UN about Israel's enemies. Sure enough, a review of every single UNIFIL web posting during the war shows that, while UNIFIL was daily revealing the towns where Israeli soldiers were located, the positions from which they were firing, and when and how they had entered Lebanese territory, it never described Hezbollah movements or locations with any specificity whatsoever. Compare the vague "various locations" language with this UNIFIL posting from July 25: Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun. Or with the posting on July 24, in which UNIFIL revealed that the IDF stationed between Marun Al Ras and Bint Jubayl were "significantly reinforced during the night and this morning with a number of tanks and armored personnel carriers." This partiality is inconsistent not only with UNIFIL's mission but also with its own stated policies. In a telling incident just a few years back, UNIFIL vigorously insisted on its "neutral ity"--at Israel's expense. On October 7, 2000, three IDF soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah just yards from a UNIFIL shelter and dragged across the border into Lebanon, where they disappeared. The UN was thought to have videotaped the incident or its immediate aftermath. Rather than help Israel rescue its kidnapped soldiers by providing this evidence, however, the UN obstructed the Israeli investigation. For months the Israeli government pleaded with the UN to turn over any videotape that might shed light on the location and condition of its missing men. And for nine months the UN stonewalled, insisting first that no such tape existed, then that just one tape existed, and eventually conceding that there were two more tapes. During those nine months, clips from the videotapes were shown on Syrian and Lebanese television. Explaining their eventual about-face, UN officials said the decision had been made by the on-site commanders that it was not their responsibility to provide the material to Israel; indeed, that to do so would violate the peacekeeping mandate, which required "full impartiality and objectivity." The UN report on the incident was adamant that its force had "to ensure that military and other sensitive information remains in their domain and is not passed to parties to a conflict." Stymied in its efforts to recover the men while they were still alive, Israel ultimately agreed to an exchange in January 2004: It released 429 Arab prisoners and detainees, among them convicted terrorists, and the bodies of 60 Lebanese decedents and members of Hezbollah, in exchange for the bodies of the three soldiers. Blame for the deaths of those three Israelis can be laid, at least in part, at the feet of the UN, which went to the wall defending its inviolable pledge never to share military intelligence about one party with another. UNIFIL has just done what it then vowed it could never do. Once again, it has acted to shield one side in the conflict and to harm the other. For that matter, how did the UN obtain such detailed and timely military intelligence in the first place, before broadcasting it for Israel's enemies to see? Lori Lowenthal Marcus is president of the Zionist Organization of America, Greater Philadelphia District. Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved. |
| www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/mandate.html resolution 1701 (2006) of 11 August 2006, UNIFIL, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426, shall: * Monitor the cessation of hostilities; By this resolution, the Council also authorized UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind; to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council; and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence. Maintained by the Peace and Security Section of the Department of Public Information in cooperation with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. |
| www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/background.html Background In the early 1970s, tension along the Israel-Lebanon border increased, especially after the relocation of Palestinian armed elements from Jordan to Lebanon. Palestinian commando operations against Israel and Israeli reprisals against Palestinian bases in Lebanon intensified. On 11 March 1978, a commando attack in Israel resulted in many dead and wounded among the Israeli population; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) claimed responsibility for that raid. In response, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon on the night of 14/15 March, and in a few days occupied the entire southern part of the country except for the city of Tyre and its surrounding area. On 15 March 1978, the Lebanese Government submitted a strong protest to the Security Council against the Israeli invasion, stating that it had no connection with the Palestinian commando operation. It also decided on the immediate establishment of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The first UNIFIL troops arrived in the area on 23 March 1978. First, the Security Council called for strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized boundaries. Second, the Security Council called upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory. The Security Council also decided, in the light of the request of the Government of Lebanon, to establish immediately a United Nations interim force for southern Lebanon. This interim force was created for three broadly defined purposes: a Confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces; c Assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area. In resolution 426 (1978), the Security Council approved the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 425 (1978). That report contained, inter alia, guidelines for the operations of UNIFIL. In June 1982, after intense exchange of fire in southern Lebanon and across the Israel-Lebanon border, Israel invaded Lebanon again, reaching and surrounding Beirut. For three years, UNIFIL remained behind the Israeli lines, with its role limited to providing protection and humanitarian assistance to the local population to the extent possible. In 1985, Israel carried out a partial withdrawal, but it retained control of an area in southern Lebanon manned by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and by Lebanese de facto forces (DFF), the so-called "South Lebanon Army" (SLA). Hostilities continued between Israeli and auxiliary forces on the one hand, and Lebanese groups who proclaimed their resistance against the Israeli occupation on the other. Over the years, the Security Council maintained its commitment to Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, while the Secretary-General continued his efforts to persuade Israel to leave the occupied zone. Israel maintained that the zone was a temporary arrangement governed by its security concerns. Lebanon demanded that Israel withdraw, viewing the occupation as illegal and contrary to United Nations resolutions. Although UNIFIL was prevented from fulfilling its mandate, the Force used its best efforts to limit the conflict, contribute to stability in the region and protect the population of the area from the worst effects of the violence. Despite the impasse, the Security Council has repeatedly extended the mandate of UNIFIL at the request of the Government of Lebanon and on the recommendation of the Secretary-General. Israeli Withdrawal On 17 April 2000, the Secretary-General received formal notification from the Government of Israel that it would withdraw its forces from Lebanon by July 2000 "in full accordance with Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978)". He was further informed that in so doing the Government of Israel intended "to cooperate fully with the United Nations". informed the Security Council of this notification on the same day, stating that he had initiated preparations to enable the United Nations to carry out its responsibilities under those resolutions. endorsed the Secretary-General's decision to initiate those preparations. As a first step, the Secretary-General sent his Special Envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen (Norway), together with the Force Commander of UNIFIL and a team of experts, to meet with the Governments of Israel and Lebanon and concerned Member States in the region, including Egypt, Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic. The delegation also met with the PLO and the League of Arab States. During the mission, United Nations cartographic, legal and military experts examined the technical issues that would need to be addressed in the context of the implementation of resolution 425 (1978). Parallel to that mission, which took place between 26 April and 9 May 2000, the Secretary-General consulted with interested Member States, including those contributing troops to UNIFIL. Starting on 16 May, much sooner than anticipated, IDF/DFF began to vacate its positions, amid exchange of fire. Beginning on 21 May, large crowds of Lebanese, accompanied by armed elements, entered villages in the Israeli-controlled area, and IDF/DFF vacated their position in great haste. At the same time, a large number of the de facto forces, together with their families, crossed into Israel. Within a few days, those forces had completely disbanded. On 25 May, the Government of Israel notified the Secretary-General that Israel had redeployed its forces in compliance with Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978). endorsed by the Security Council on 23 May Withdrawal Confirmed From 24 May to 7 June, the Special Envoy travelled to Israel, Lebanon and the Syrian Arab Republic to follow up on the implementation of the Secretary-General's 22 May report. The United Nations cartographer and his team, assisted by UNIFIL, worked on the ground to identify a line to be adopted for the practical purposes of confirming the Israeli withdrawal. While this was not a formal border demarcation, the aim was to identify a line on the ground conforming to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon, based on the best available cartographic and other documentary evidence. A map showing the withdrawal line was formally transmitted by the Force Commander of UNIFIL to his Lebanese and Israeli counterparts. Notwithstanding their reservations about the line, the Governments of Israel and Lebanon confirmed that identifying this line was solely the responsibility of the United Nations and that they would respect the line as identified. On 8 June, UNIFIL teams commenced the work of verifying the Israeli withdrawal behind the line. reported to the Security Council that Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with resolution 425 (1978) and met the requirements defined in his report of 22 May 2000 -- namely, Israel had completed the withdrawal in conformity with the line identified by the United Nations, DFF/SLA had been dismantled, and all detainees held at Al-Khiam prison had been freed. The Secretary-General said that the Government of Lebanon had moved quickly to re-establish its effective authority in the area through the deployment of its security forces, and had informed the United Nations that it would send a composite force composed of army and internal security personnel to be based in Marjayoun. It also stated that it would consider deploying its armed forces throughout southern Lebanon following confirmation by the Secretary-General of Israel's withdrawal. The Secretary-General noted that the deployment of the armed forces was an essential element of the return of the effective authority of the Government in the area. This deployment should be conducted in coordination with UNIFIL's redeployment in its area of operations. welcomed the Secretary-General's report and endorsed the work done by the United Nations. The Council, inter alia, called on all parties concerned to cooperate with the United Nations and to exercise the utmost restraint. It also noted that the United Nations co... |