Israel's Attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we please start a separate thread for the news monitoring as opposed to political discussions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Second. Also as someone else said, links would be useful if you;re going to do this.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Israel denies it was intentional and has apologized for the accident. The article fails to mention that Kofi Annan or someone speaking for him acknowledged that there are 3 missile launching facilities in the immediate area of the UN post that might have been the actual targets.

[/ QUOTE ]
The bomb was a direct hit on the building. Israel had been warned no less than six times that they were putting these U.N. peacekeepers in danger with their shelling. The bombing may not have been intentional, but it sure as hell was negligent. And rocket sites in the area do not justify dropping bombs on whatever else happens to be there. If they knew there were rocket sites nearby, why not go in with the special forces?

Hopefully I don't get banned for these anti-Israel links...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't the UN in the South to stop Hexbollah in the first place? Maybe if they were busy scouting out the rockets, and otherwise doing their jobs, instead of drinking tea with Hezbollah soldiers...

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't the UN in the South to stop Hexbollah in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't the UN in the South to stop Hexbollah in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

No? what were they there for? We arent going to get into a semantic argument over HZB, militias, etc are we?

They were there specifically to ensure no military buildup, foreign or domestic militias in South Lebanon that would be a threat to Israel. If you dont read HZB and Syria in there, given the history of the region, you just dont want to see it.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
"Precision guided bombs"...do you know how there precision is defined? In terms of PROBABILITY of hitting the intended target. That probability != 1 for any weapons that Ive ever read about.

Do you know how close the 3 missile launch sites are to the UN observation post? Do you know how the presence of multiple weapons sites affects the probability of accuracy in hitting anyone of them?

Until someone presents a plausible motive for an intentional strike, its BS imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's another issue too, which is ten or so people hundreds of miles away are reviewing hundreds and hundreds of satellite and aerial reconnaisance pictures and setting the bomb's course, given the amount of work (and pressure given the number of missile attacks) sooner or later the wrong building is going to get picked. It's part of war...

(the USA made such a mistake in Kosovo with the Chinese embassy, although a great many conspiracists claim it was "intentional")

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
They were there specifically to ensure no military buildup, foreign or domestic militias in South Lebanon that would be a threat to Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

EDIT My previous response was inaccurate. THey were put there in 1978 for three reasons; to
# Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
# Restore international peace and security;
# Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

The last one suggests helping reduce the Hizb Allah presence, although that was not the original purpose (Hizb Allah not having existed in 1978). They certainly weren;t there to confront Hizb Allah, any more than they were to confront the Israeli army if it came back (which it did, repeatedly).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They were there specifically to ensure no military buildup, foreign or domestic militias in South Lebanon that would be a threat to Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they weren't. They were put there donkeys years ago to monitor ceasefire violations by any side. That's it. They had no role in preventing the presence of anyone and they weren't there simply to benefit Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you were debating so reasonably for a while...why did I think it could last?


UNIFIL is mandated with achieving the following objectives:

Confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon;
Restore international peace and security;
Assist the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.

It received its authority under 1559 which states in part that the UN is

"Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon, which prevent the Lebanese government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese terrirory"

monitoring ceasefires is a small part of that responsibility. It is there failure to assist Lebanon to the full extent of their authority that contributed to the current conflict.

That there responsibilities include more that monitoring ceasefires is this language from the 2006 extension:

"“Recalling also the Secretary-General’s conclusion that, as of 16 June 2000, Israel had withdrawn its forces from Lebanon in accordance with resolution 425 (1978) and met the requirements defined in the Secretary-General’s report of 22 May 2000 (S/2000/460), as well as the Secretary-General’s conclusion that the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) had essentially completed two of the three parts of its mandate, focusing now on the remaining task of restoring international peace and security,"

restoring, not monitoring

[nicky g]

You're right, I checked myself and changed my post. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
It received its authority under 1559 which states in part that the UN is

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? UNFIl has been there sine 1978. 1559 was passed last year.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right, I checked myself and changed my post. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
It received its authority under 1559 which states in part that the UN is

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? UNFIl has been there sine 1978. 1559 was passed last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I changed the wording of that a few times...originally it said "received its most recent authority". 1559 was an extension of 425 and 426 (both in 1978) and a few intervening resolutions. With the events of 2000, the UN reaffirmed their role on June 18 2000:

[ QUOTE ]
"The Security Council welcomes the measures taken by the Secretary-General and the troop-contributing countries relating to UNIFIL augmentation, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the report of the Secretary-General of 22 May 2000. The Council stresses that the redeployment of UNIFIL should be conducted in coordination with the Government of Lebanon and with the Lebanese armed forces as stated in paragraph 21 of the report of the Secretary-General of 16 June 2000. In that context, the Council invites the Secretary-General to report back on the measures taken to that effect and those taken by the Government of Lebanon to restore its effective authority in the area, in accordance with its resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978). The Council looks forward to the completion of the mandate of UNIFIL and will review by 31 July 2000 the need to extend the present mandate of UNIFIL, taking into account the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), including the actions taken by the Government of Lebanon to restore its effective authority in the area.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Sniper]

After the meeting the Prime Minister's Office released the following statement: "The decisions taken today are a clear indication that Israel is quite serious about obtaining the objectives of the operation in Lebanon, meaning the return of the two kidnapped IDF soldiers and the total cessation of rocket fire into Israel. We are not budging from these two objectives."