|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 22, 2006 9:06:11 GMT -5
Just found this news item a few minutes ago. BC, you cited concerns about a massive humanitarian crisis. The UN is predicting just that. And as we discussed earlier, they are working behind the scenes in getting a plan in motion. Part of that discussion is something we also discussed here. Annan mentions possible EU intervention as well. You'll read that he expects European nations to augment the existing 2,000-man UN force that is already in place. He also mentions that this stabilization force will have to be better equipped and alludes to giving them a new mandate that I suspect will be a much defined rules of engagement. UN warns of humanitarian crisis in Lebanon
By Middle East correspondent David Hardaker and wires
The United Nations has warned of a looming humanitarian crisis in Lebanon as thousands of families flee Israeli attacks.
Roads from the south of Lebanon are reported to be clogged with thousands leaving their homes and heading for refuge.
The International Red Cross says it is attempting to supply food, medicine and blankets, though it says it is being hindered by a lack of security on roads to the south.
Two thousand Red Cross first aid volunteers have been dispatched to Hezbollah areas in Beirut, the Bekaar Valley and the south.
A United Nations peace keeping force in the south says it has been unable to supply food and water to its troops because of the danger posed by Israeli air attacks.
Stabilisation force
United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan says he expects European nations to contribute troops to a proposed beefed-up stabilisation force to end fighting in southern Lebanon.
Mr Annan told a news conference the force would have to be bigger, better equipped and with a stronger mandate than the powerless 2,000-man UN Interim Force in Lebanon, which has been unable to keep peace on the Israeli-Lebanese border.
"It is urgent that the international community acts to make a difference on the ground," Mr Annan said after talks with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso in Brussels.
"I would expect a force that will have a modified and different concept of operation and with different capabilities. I would expect contributions from European countries and countries from other regions," Mr Annan said.
Mr Barroso said some European Union member states had expressed their willingness to contribute to the proposed force.
The United States and Israel have cast doubt on the idea, with Washington questioning how such a force would restrain Hezbollah guerrillas from attacking Israel, and Israeli officials saying the idea is premature.
Mr Annan was speaking on the seventh day of an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah positions and Lebanese civilian infrastructure in response to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers last week in a cross-border raid and a barrage of Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israeli towns.
Mr Annan said he would put a proposal for a multilateral force to the UN Security Council, urge all parties to the conflict to accept it and "begin to move to put troops on the ground in the form of a stabilisation force and insist on cessation of hostilities".
He did not say who would be responsible for disarming Hezbollah, a sophisticated Lebanese Shiite militia supported by Syria and Iran, which has so far given no indication that it is prepared to lay down its arms voluntarily.ABC reportsNote the last paragraph. Normally, both sides of a conflict must agree to having UN intervention. However, in this case Annan may not have a choice. He says that "he'll urge all parties to the conflict to accept it." Well even if Hezbollah doesn't agree to it, the stabilization force must be ready to enforce the UN's decision. I don't know when he can have this force ready but a build-up period can't be too long. While they haven't openly admitted to the scale of their intent, the Israelis are preparing for an all out invasion of Lebanon to eradicate Hezbollah. This will make it even more difficult for a stabilization force to get in there. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 22, 2006 9:09:00 GMT -5
It takes cement 3 days to harden and the airport is in full operation. It takes 3 months to rebuild bridges. Concrete is designed based on 28 day strengths. Most specifications call for concrete to cure for 7 days because concrete attains 75% of its design strength after 7 days. I know of cases where concrete has been used prior to reaching 7 day strengths, but I can tell you the designer is on pin and needles in those cases. As for the bridges. Well that depends on the type of bridge. If they put back a pre-fab Bailey bridge, you could have a bridge built in less than a month (depending on if the abutments are still usable, and what they are made of). Kicks myself ... I am vacation for 3 weeks what am i doing talking about work!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 22, 2006 9:17:46 GMT -5
civil (?) war is civil war, In the words of Axl Rose ... what's so civil about war anyway. "What we have here ... is a failure to communicate. Look at your young men fighting Look at your women crying Look at your young men dying The way they've always done before Look at the hate we're breeding Look at the fear we're feeding Look at the lives we're leading The way we've always done before My hands are tied The billions shift from side to side And the wars go on with brainwashed pride For the love of God and our human rights And all these things are swept aside By bloody hands time can't deny And are washed away by your genocide And history hides the lies of our civil wars |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 22, 2006 9:29:28 GMT -5
G'n'R with a social conscience? Whoda thunk?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 22, 2006 9:30:19 GMT -5
Then start pumping the money in. I think I read somewhere that the US donates something like $2 billion a year to Israel, and something like $40 million to Lebanon. That’s got to change, and quickly. Again, you want every nation in the world contributing, and more importantly, honoring their commitments. I don’t know how much it will cost to rebuild Lebanon, but I’d aim for $50 billion to start with, and go from there. Sounds like a glorified "equalization formula". We see right here at home how well that works.  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 22, 2006 10:11:31 GMT -5
Then start pumping the money in. I think I read somewhere that the US donates something like $2 billion a year to Israel, and something like $40 million to Lebanon. That’s got to change, and quickly. Again, you want every nation in the world contributing, and more importantly, honoring their commitments. I don’t know how much it will cost to rebuild Lebanon, but I’d aim for $50 billion to start with, and go from there. Sounds like a glorified "equalization formula". We see right here at home how well that works. Kwitcher bellyachin' -- haven't you learned yet that some are more equal than others? ;D Amazing that Ontario is whining because the formula isn't fair. Come on, Mr. McGuinty -- this is Canada -- fairness has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 22, 2006 10:19:06 GMT -5
United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan says he expects European nations to contribute troops to a proposed beefed-up stabilisation force to end fighting in southern Lebanon.
Mr Annan told a news conference the force would have to be bigger, better equipped and with a stronger mandate than the powerless 2,000-man UN Interim Force in Lebanon, which has been unable to keep peace on the Israeli-Lebanese border.
. . .
"I would expect a force that will have a modified and different concept of operation and with different capabilities. I would expect contributions from European countries and countries from other regions," Mr Annan said. Good luck with that! Pardon my pessimism, but I just can't seen much willingness to involve themselves in any conflict where there might be the slightest danger. I can't see them doing any more than they did in Darfur a number of years ago -- tsk-tsking the warring factions but not getting involved. As Bones would say, Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor peace-lover, not a peace-brokerAnd there it is. Not only no teeth, but no will and even no idea. Typical. We need to do something. We need someone to do something. Anyone? Bueller? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 23, 2006 9:33:04 GMT -5
Well, the Israelis aren't dicking around by waiting for the UN to show up. Based on their track record in the Balkans, they've asked for specifically for NATO. By doing so I don't think both sides have to agree to it (unlike a UN deployment). By asking for NATO the mission would be implied ... you'll do what we say or we'll pound you into dust.
But, this would also put a strain on NATO countries because many of them are already involved in Afghanistan.
Israel calls for NATO troops along border
Last Updated Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:47:58 EDT
CBC News
Israel will accept the deployment of NATO-led forces along the Lebanese border to deter Hezbollah militants, Israel's defence minister said Sunday as his country continued air strikes for a 12th day.
A vehicle, which is next to a Lebanese army checkpoint in the southern Lebanon city of Tyre, burns after being hit by an Israeli warplane's missile on Sunday. (Nasser Nasser/Associated Press) A vehicle, which is next to a Lebanese army checkpoint in the southern Lebanon city of Tyre, burns after being hit by an Israeli warplane's missile on Sunday. (Nasser Nasser/Associated Press)
Amir Peretz made the comments during a closed-door meeting in Jerusalem with visiting German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, according to officials from Peretz's office.
"Israel's goal is to see the Lebanese army deployed along the border with Israel, but we understand that we are talking about a weak army and that in the mid-term period, Israel will have to accept a multinational force," Peretz said, according to the officials.
Peretz suggested NATO should take charge of the troops to try to crack the Lebanon-based Hezbollah's strength. It wants an end to the militant's strikes, including periodic rocket attacks that the militants have carried out since Israel ended a two-decade occupation with its withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.
Rockets level Hezbollah compound in Sidon
Meanwhile, a day after Israel escalated its offensive by sending soldiers, tanks and bulldozers into Lebanon, Israeli aircraft continued their strikes on Sunday.
They hit the Lebanese port city of Sidon for the first time, destroying a religious compound linked with Hezbollah militants early Sunday.
Jets fired missiles at the Sayyed al-Zahraa compound, which includes a mosque, a religious library and a seminary, witnesses said.
No one was in the buildings, but four bystanders were injured by flying glass and shrapnel, hospital officials said.
Hezbollah rockets strike Haifa
Hezbollah, which recently acquired longer-range missiles that let it strike deeper into Israel than ever before, also continued its attacks on Sunday.
The militants fired rockets that hit Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, damaging a house, hitting a major road and killing two people.
At least 13 others were hurt in rocket attacks across northern Israel, according to Reuters.
Rice begins Mideast mission
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was to embark on Sunday on a diplomatic mission to end fighting in the Middle East. She was also expected at a meeting in Rome on Wednesday that will bring together Israel, Lebanon, the European Union, the United Nations and others interested in Middle East peace.
The Israeli campaign of air strikes launched after the Lebanon-based Hezbollah crossed the border into Israel on July 12 and attacked an army outpost, killing eight soldiers and capturing two others.
The Israeli military has mostly pounded Hezbollah strongholds, the Shia Muslim regions of southern and eastern Lebanon and Beirut's southern suburbs.
It's difficult to determine exactly how many militants have died since Hezbollah often lists its members as civilians but the Israeli bombardment has killed at least 348 people in Lebanon — including at least eight Canadian civilians.
The attacks have displaced an estimated half a million people, including thousands of Canadians who are among the foreigners fleeing Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah has fired more than 1,000 rockets into Israel, killing at least 37 people, including 19 soldiers, and spurring at least a third of all the people living in northern regions to flee south, Israeli officials said.
Cross-border deployment not invasion: Israel
When Israel sent in troops and bulldozers on Saturday, officials said the attack was not an invasion and insisted they had no intention of re-occupying southern Lebanon.
Israel has twice before invaded and occupied Lebanese territory, in 1978 and 1982.
Senior Israeli military officials said the offensive will not end until Israel can force Hezbollah to retreat beyond the Litani River, which runs about 30 kilometres north of the Israeli-Lebanese border. Israel on Friday called up approximately 3,000 reservists.
That's just the military side of things. I suspect the UN will be involved with the humanitarian side as well, but they have far too many departments that continually work against each other.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 23, 2006 11:09:31 GMT -5
The very epitome of Western power, NATO will probably enter with a substantial force. So what did Hezbollah accomplish? They destroyed the ones they profess to love and protect, they crippled their military operations and they will have NATO power in their front AND back yard. They have brought the limelight on Iran/Syria and their willingness to supply weapons for terror. They managed to sink so low as to be condemned by the League of Arab Nations. Absolutely brilliant strategy by the Hezbollah.  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 23, 2006 12:21:31 GMT -5
It's hard to be your own worst enemy when there is so much competition waiting in the wings.
|
|
|
|
Post by insomnius on Jul 25, 2006 12:16:33 GMT -5
Before posting anything I would like to state for the record that this conversation is one of the most respectful ones I have seen on the topic. OK heregoes! I am the son of an Israeli soldier. (My father was in the bomb squad in the fifties and fought in the 1956 War - www.historyguy.com/suez_war_1956.html). I have a first cousin who is a settler on the west bank. I married a non-Jewish woman. When we had a child, this cousin enlisted the help of another cousin and together they sent me a letter saying that my father was turning over in his grave because my daughter was not Jewish. I have not spoken to them since then. I have been in Israel. I have been in shopping centers that were later bombed. I have been in cafes that were later bombed. I have been on buses that were later bombed. At any time I could have been there when a bomb went off. I start this post in this way to make a point about the difference between civilian and military targets. Had I been bombed when in Israel, I would hope in my dying moments that Israel would launch a major offensive in defense of its civlians. However, history shows that Israel does not react this way - instead it targets the family of the bomber and goes after their family dwelling and the like. And now they have kidnapped military targets and the major offensive is launched. And I just cannot understand. When in a conflict and the enemy targets your civilians, should you not respond with extreme force to make clear that civilians are off limits? When in a conflict and the enemy targets your military, is that not within the "rules of engagement"? Why wouldn't Israel respond with such force when its CIVILIANS are attacked? In my humble opinion, the reaction should have been the exact opposite - full offensive when civilians are the target and limited incursions when the military are targeted. I simply cannot understand how a military target prompted such an aggressive response and a host of civilian targets has prompted such mild reactions. As far as Hezbollahs actions being prompted by Syrian and Iranian interests I absolutely concur. As far as Lebanese interests being utterly ignored I absolutely concur. I am disgusted with the whole thing - on every side. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 25, 2006 19:37:12 GMT -5
another point of view by Martin Accad The academic dean of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary is angry at evangelical Christians, Israel, Hezbollah, the U.S., and the international community. It is normally easy enough for me to dismiss with a smirk some of the simplistic comments that I constantly read or hear from Christians around the world as pertains to events that are going on in the Middle East. These comments hit much deeper at a time when my country is once again hurting beyond pain, under the murderous aggression of Israeli armed forces for the past five days.
It is striking how normally highly reasonable and spiritually aware people can suddenly lose any sense of ethical, let alone Christian, balance when it comes to Middle East conflicts involving modern political Israel.
"Great. All we need is a nuclear-armed Iran led by a messianic president who hates Israel and believes that apocalyptic destruction is a precursor to global salvation," writes David P. Gushee in a recent Christianity Today online column, in reference to Iran's president Ahmadinejad. On the whole, Gushee's article is fairly balanced from a certain point of view, and I suppose within the limits necessary to avoid being attacked and branded by those in our churches who have but disdain for Arabs.
But how is it that he, like so many others, fails to notice that world events in the last few years—even decades—have had as their main catalyst tens of thousands of evangelical Christians with a "messianic" mentality who believe that apocalyptic destruction of all but their beloved Israel will be "a precursor to global salvation"?
"Nuclear-armed Iran"? How about the Israeli jet planes that are bombing, as I write, my country and its population, my sisters, my brothers, my fathers and mothers and grandfathers, my children and nieces and nephews? According to the Lebanese health minister, Israel is even using phosphoric bombs, which are forbidden under international conventions! Are my people to consider Iran more dangerous than this? Are we safely in good hands with such actions? Come with me to Beirut and see how inoffensive Israel is. Ask the thousands of Western nationals that are presently being evacuated by the shipload. Ask the hundreds of U.S. and other Western missionaries that are running for their lives from Lebanon as you read this, through the most dangerous routes. Ask them whether weapons of any kind are in safe hands in any bloodthirsty human hands. And if they were not bloodthirsty, why would they have them? Why would anyone have them?[keep reading!]
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 25, 2006 19:49:20 GMT -5
Before posting anything I would like to state for the record that this conversation is one of the most respectful ones I have seen on the topic. OK heregoes! I am the son of an Israeli soldier. (My father was in the bomb squad in the fifties and fought in the 1956 War - www.historyguy.com/suez_war_1956.html). I have a first cousin who is a settler on the west bank. I married a non-Jewish woman. When we had a child, this cousin enlisted the help of another cousin and together they sent me a letter saying that my father was turning over in his grave because my daughter was not Jewish. I have not spoken to them since then. I have been in Israel. I have been in shopping centers that were later bombed. I have been in cafes that were later bombed. I have been on buses that were later bombed. At any time I could have been there when a bomb went off. I start this post in this way to make a point about the difference between civilian and military targets. Had I been bombed when in Israel, I would hope in my dying moments that Israel would launch a major offensive in defense of its civlians. However, history shows that Israel does not react this way - instead it targets the family of the bomber and goes after their family dwelling and the like. And now they have kidnapped military targets and the major offensive is launched. And I just cannot understand. When in a conflict and the enemy targets your civilians, should you not respond with extreme force to make clear that civilians are off limits? When in a conflict and the enemy targets your military, is that not within the "rules of engagement"? Why wouldn't Israel respond with such force when its CIVILIANS are attacked? In my humble opinion, the reaction should have been the exact opposite - full offensive when civilians are the target and limited incursions when the military are targeted. I simply cannot understand how a military target prompted such an aggressive response and a host of civilian targets has prompted such mild reactions. As far as Hezbollahs actions being prompted by Syrian and Iranian interests I absolutely concur. As far as Lebanese interests being utterly ignored I absolutely concur. I am disgusted with the whole thing - on every side. Don't lose any sleep over it. I don't love the Israeli's. I don't love the Palestinians. I don't love the Lebanese. I don't hate any of them either. I think they all are suffering. I think it's their problem, not mine. I love my country and my family. Isreal doesn't represent a threat to us. Hezbolah does. They are crooks, gangsters and extortionists. They hide behind civilian skirts. To protect ourself we have to attack them and sometimes civilians are in the way. The gangsters put them in the way on purpose. I first became aware of the dangers of Radical Islam when the Ayotolah took over in Iran, when the American Embassy staff became guests of Iran and when Salman Rushdie was given a death sentence by the Imams. The United States did not become a democracy by peaceful means. There was a war of Independance and a bloody civil war. Iran and Iraq have even greater diversity to overcome to settle their affairs. It will be bloody, it may take years. I just want to live in peace and let them settle their own problems. I'm not losing too much sleep over it, unless it threatens to spread to our shores and then we have to act decisively and with finality. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 26, 2006 22:30:37 GMT -5
Before posting anything I would like to state for the record that this conversation is one of the most respectful ones I have seen on the topic. OK heregoes! I am the son of an Israeli soldier. (My father was in the bomb squad in the fifties and fought in the 1956 War - www.historyguy.com/suez_war_1956.html). I have a first cousin who is a settler on the west bank. I married a non-Jewish woman. When we had a child, this cousin enlisted the help of another cousin and together they sent me a letter saying that my father was turning over in his grave because my daughter was not Jewish. I have not spoken to them since then. I have been in Israel. I have been in shopping centers that were later bombed. I have been in cafes that were later bombed. I have been on buses that were later bombed. At any time I could have been there when a bomb went off. I start this post in this way to make a point about the difference between civilian and military targets. Had I been bombed when in Israel, I would hope in my dying moments that Israel would launch a major offensive in defense of its civlians. However, history shows that Israel does not react this way - instead it targets the family of the bomber and goes after their family dwelling and the like. And now they have kidnapped military targets and the major offensive is launched. And I just cannot understand. When in a conflict and the enemy targets your civilians, should you not respond with extreme force to make clear that civilians are off limits? When in a conflict and the enemy targets your military, is that not within the "rules of engagement"? Why wouldn't Israel respond with such force when its CIVILIANS are attacked? In my humble opinion, the reaction should have been the exact opposite - full offensive when civilians are the target and limited incursions when the military are targeted. I simply cannot understand how a military target prompted such an aggressive response and a host of civilian targets has prompted such mild reactions. As far as Hezbollahs actions being prompted by Syrian and Iranian interests I absolutely concur. As far as Lebanese interests being utterly ignored I absolutely concur. I am disgusted with the whole thing - on every side. The major difference, as I see it, is this: When Hezbollah, or others, enlist the young to strap bombs onto themselves, (and in some instances the use of missiles) for a one time act of agression .... it is an act of terrorism. When Hezbollah, or others, spend years building a tunnel, and enlist their young to cross borders and strategically remove a military target from its soil, ... it is an act of war. As for your refernce to the "rules of engagement" ... well the enemy (in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Lebanon) do not respect the rules of engagement ... if they did the wars would be quick. The fact is that the rules of engagement get virtually thrown out the window in guerilla warfare. You can not expect Israel to follow the rules of enagagement when the opponent clearly arent either. The rules of engagement clearly state that civilian, UN, peacekeeping posts shall not be targeted. But .... if you were a soldier and sitting in your jeep and a civilian walks up to you would you not be on edge knowing the enemy's main weapon is civilians with bombs hidden under their clothes?? Until the terrorists clearly mark who they are on the battlefield I will not shed a tear when they hide behind the civilians like cowards. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 27, 2006 2:33:32 GMT -5
Kill a terrorist:................ 5 points
Kill a civilian:...................1 point
Kill a UN peacekeeper:...2 points
These so called civilians are not simply innocent victims. They actively cheer and support Hezbolah. (more than 50%) They attend the funerals of slain martyrs and cheer them and their grieving families on their way to Allah and his virgins.
When the pain is sufficient, both sides will get together and talk. Until then, have at it and fill those empty graves. Condalisa has no influence to get anybody to stop short (ref. Cosmo Kramer)
Until Hezbolah is disarmed and disbanded, or until every last Israeli is dead, there will be no peace.
Skilly is absolutely right about not being able to trust anybody over there on either side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 27, 2006 18:55:47 GMT -5
Innocent ciivilians? Some, but not all. When a civilian aids and willingly assist an enemy of one's country then he is a collaborator.
The Hezbollah has hide amongst the civilian population and welcome every death with celebration for their cause. Their full intent is to use civilian deaths to ignite the region into conflict. They have failed. They also underestimated the world indifference to civilian deaths. After all, it's hard to cry about someone whose death is gleefully invited from the very people they support. How can one cheer the death of innocent others and expect sympathy for themselves?
I use to be sympathetic but the Hezbollah and their like have beaten it out of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 27, 2006 19:52:26 GMT -5
to stop short (ref. Cosmo Kramer) Estellle Constanza. It was George's mother who said that Kramer stopped short. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 29, 2006 17:32:28 GMT -5
Isreal doesn't represent a threat to us. I'm not sure who you mean by "us" but I have to disagree. Israel represents a threat to everyone, not just their own enemies, because their actions (and not only their recent actions) have the potential to bring about a major war. I think that the idea that it's not "our" problem is short-sighted and dangerous; with the way things are now, it's everyone's problem. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 30, 2006 3:50:38 GMT -5
The Lies Israel Tells Itself (and We Tell on Its Behalf) by Jonathan Cook When journalists use the word "apparently," or another favorite "reportedly," they are usually distancing themselves from an event or an interpretation in the supposed interests of balance. But I think we should read the "apparently" contained in a statement from the head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, relating to the killing this week of four unarmed UN monitors by the Israeli army in its other sense. When Annan says that those four deaths were "apparently deliberate," I take him to mean that the evidence shows that the killings were deliberate. And who can disagree with him? At least 10 phone calls were made to Israeli commanders over a period of six hours warning that artillery and aerial bombardments were either dangerously close to or hitting the monitors' building. The UN post, in Khaim just inside south Lebanon, was clearly marked and well-known to the army, but nonetheless it was hit directly four times in the last hour before an Israeli helicopter fired a precision-guided missile that tore through the roof of an underground shelter, killing the monitors inside. A UN convoy that arrived too late to rescue the peacekeepers was also fired on. From the evidence, it does not get much more deliberate than that. The problem, however, is that Western leaders, diplomats, and the media take the "apparently" in its first sense – as a way to avoid holding Israel to account for its actions. For "apparently deliberate," read "almost certainly accidental." That was why the best the UN Security Council could manage after a day and a half of deliberation was a weaselly statement of "shock and distress" at the killings, as though they were an act of God. .... A psychologist tells me how upset she is about a meeting she attended a few days ago of the northern coordinating committee of her profession. They were discussing how best to treat the shock and trauma suffered by Israeli children under the bombardment from Hezbollah. The meeting concluded with an agreement that the psychologists would reassure the children with the statement: "The army is there to protect us." And so, the seeds of fascism are unthinkingly sown for another generation of children, children like our own. No one agreed with my friend when she dissented, arguing that this was not the message to be telling impressionable minds, and that violence against the Other is not a panacea for our problems. Parents, not soldiers, are responsible for protecting their children, she pointed out. Tanks, planes, and guns bring only fear and more hatred, hatred that will one day return to haunt us. - more (long but interesting)
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 30, 2006 7:57:12 GMT -5
The Lies Israel Tells Itself (and We Tell on Its Behalf) by Jonathan Cook When journalists use the word "apparently," or another favorite "reportedly," they are usually distancing themselves from an event or an interpretation in the supposed interests of balance. But I think we should read the "apparently" contained in a statement from the head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, relating to the killing this week of four unarmed UN monitors by the Israeli army in its other sense. When Annan says that those four deaths were "apparently deliberate," I take him to mean that the evidence shows that the killings were deliberate. And who can disagree with him? At least 10 phone calls were made to Israeli commanders over a period of six hours warning that artillery and aerial bombardments were either dangerously close to or hitting the monitors' building. The UN post, in Khaim just inside south Lebanon, was clearly marked and well-known to the army, but nonetheless it was hit directly four times in the last hour before an Israeli helicopter fired a precision-guided missile that tore through the roof of an underground shelter, killing the monitors inside. A UN convoy that arrived too late to rescue the peacekeepers was also fired on. From the evidence, it does not get much more deliberate than that. The problem, however, is that Western leaders, diplomats, and the media take the "apparently" in its first sense – as a way to avoid holding Israel to account for its actions. For "apparently deliberate," read "almost certainly accidental." That was why the best the UN Security Council could manage after a day and a half of deliberation was a weaselly statement of "shock and distress" at the killings, as though they were an act of God. .... A psychologist tells me how upset she is about a meeting she attended a few days ago of the northern coordinating committee of her profession. They were discussing how best to treat the shock and trauma suffered by Israeli children under the bombardment from Hezbollah. The meeting concluded with an agreement that the psychologists would reassure the children with the statement: "The army is there to protect us." And so, the seeds of fascism are unthinkingly sown for another generation of children, children like our own. No one agreed with my friend when she dissented, arguing that this was not the message to be telling impressionable minds, and that violence against the Other is not a panacea for our problems. Parents, not soldiers, are responsible for protecting their children, she pointed out. Tanks, planes, and guns bring only fear and more hatred, hatred that will one day return to haunt us. - more (long but interesting) I was on vacation when I first heard of this, MC. I remember thinking that there's no way in blazes the Israelis didn't know what they were doing and this account reinforces that. First, a UN observation post is usually painted white and clearly marked with big "U.N." on it. Secondly, no doubt it was on a high ground so this "U.N." was clearly visable to everyone in the area including them. Thirdly, the outpost probably been there since 1978. Given the Israelis had an occupation force in the area, I have to I think they knew about it for quite a while. There's nothing "apparent" about this. The attack was meant to deny Hezbollah the use of any high ground. Just on that I think the Israelis took it out on principal. They could have cared less if there had been UN observers there or not. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 30, 2006 9:53:36 GMT -5
Jonathan Cook and company are not facing mortar fire or rockets hitting their homes. It's easy to be a critic when neither are happening to oneself.
The question no one can answer is WHY they were there. The FACT is that the Hezbollah was using the high ground for observation to mortar the IDF advance. The UN knew that and yet refused to leave, the Hezbollah took advantage of it knowing full well that the IDF could not let this go on. Why did thye UN refuse to leave? Because they feel that it would mean a "loss of face". It certainly was not because of ANY usefull purpose to ANYONE. Even the wife of the dead Canadian said that he would not "leave his post" even if he was in danger. This one lays on the head of the UN.
Everything is about perspective. One can feel sorry the dead UN man or one would feel sorry from the next mortar round that killed four IDF man.
Dis, put your military hat on. Would you let the high ground go to the enemy where they can observe and kill your man?
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 30, 2006 13:28:31 GMT -5
Jonathan Cook and company are not facing mortar fire or rockets hitting their homes. It's easy to be a critic when neither are happening to oneself. Actually, Jonathan Cook is based in Nazareth, which has been a target of Hezbollah rockets.... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 30, 2006 13:55:32 GMT -5
Jonathan Cook and company are not facing mortar fire or rockets hitting their homes. It's easy to be a critic when neither are happening to oneself. The question no one can answer is WHY they were there. Actually lots of people can answer that ... like the guys who served there and still serve there today. It's not like the UN all of a sudden decided to occupy that observation point, HA. That outpost has been manned by the UN since 1978 (as I was saying to MC before I found this article). Here's a cut and paste from CBC's article. Why were the four at Khiyam?
Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener had been an instructor at the Peace Support Training Centre in Kingston, Ont., where he taught soldiers the skills they needed to be UN military observers. (Canadian Armed Forces-G. LeClair/CP) Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener was the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon. He had been an instructor at the Peace Support Training Centre in Kingston, Ont. (Canadian Armed Forces-G. LeClair/CP)
The simple answer is they were doing their job. Maj. Hess-von Kruedener had been based at Khiyam since October. The group was to monitor ceasefire violations between Hezbollah militants and the Israeli army in their area of the so-called buffer zone in southeastern Lebanon.
This is something UNIFIL has been doing since 1978, after Israel invaded its northern neighbour for a second time following a prolonged border skirmish. The UN role was downgraded to observer status in 2000, after Israel pulled its troops out of Lebanon, seemingly for good. Actually, if you really do want to discuss "facts" then it was the Isrealis, and no one else (would like to read this from another source other than the Israelis), who reported via CNN that, "The building itself was not targeted," Israeli government spokeswoman Miri Eisen told CNN. "The building itself was next to the rocket-launcher sites and we are targeting all of those rocket-launcher sites. This was a mistake and we will have a full investigation."A mistake? The base and its area was hit 21 times. The last few were laser-guided bombs launched from aircraft that hit the safety bunker dead on. I think the Israelis knew without a doubt what they were targeting with these munitions. It had nothing to do with losing face as you put it. Actually, the residents of the area were given the notice to evacuate the area. Being civilians they did just that. If you're military and you've been given an order to stay and observe ceasefire violations you do just that. And, if your mandate says you go into that area unarmed then you do that too. If you say no, you take your chances with a military courts martial (penalties for disobeying a lawful command is severely compounded when you're in a live theatre of operations). However, I believe (opinion only) these observers finally realized what situation they were in and by the time they tried to get away from it, they couldn't get out: "According to UN spokespeople and a preliminary report by the agency, the Khiyam post had been under fire for six hours, beginning at 1:20 in the afternoon, while those inside were pleading for help."The UN has a mandate and they were carrying it out. And if they left well ahead of schedule they would have taken heat for not doing the jobs they were sent there to do in the first place. Besides, it sounds like even if these observers tried to leave either on foot or in a vehicle, they would have been taken out anyway. The Israelis were shooting at anything on that hill. No it doesn't, HA. As far as doing one's duty, you'd have to put on a uniform to fully understand what a sense of duty means to them. Maj. Hess-von Kruedener was an instructor here in Kingston and it was his job to prepare his candidates for various UN missions, some like this. I honestly don't know if you read my reply to MC's article. If you re-read it you'll see I addressed this very question (whether it was right or wrong). My military hat was on all the time. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 30, 2006 13:55:57 GMT -5
Jonathan Cook and company are not facing mortar fire or rockets hitting their homes. It's easy to be a critic when neither are happening to oneself. BTW, that kind of logic works both ways. You criticize Hezbollah for supposedly hiding among civilians, but, as Cook writes, The implication of [such criticism] seems to be that any Lebanese fighter, or Palestinian one, resisting Israel and its powerful military should stand in an open field, his rifle raised to the sky, waiting to see who fares worse in a shoot-out with an Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter jet. Hezbollah's reluctance to conduct the war in this manner, we are supposed to infer, is proof that they are terrorists.Why is Hezbollah's disregard for civilian casualties portrayed as worse than Israel deliberately killing unarmed UN observers (not to mention hundreds of civilians)? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 30, 2006 13:57:28 GMT -5
I believe I heard somewhere thatthe Israelis give a few days notice to the citizens and the UN of when and where they are going to bomb. Why would anyone stay knowing that their area is going to be bombed? Do you still pin the blame on the Israelis for that? If someone stays knowing full well what is planned and decides to "call the Israelis bluff" ... well not to be callous, but you were warned.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 30, 2006 14:12:00 GMT -5
I believe I heard somewhere thatthe Israelis give a few days notice to the citizens and the UN of when and where they are going to bomb. Why would anyone stay knowing that their area is going to be bombed? Do you still pin the blame on the Israelis for that? If someone stays knowing full well what is planned and decides to "call the Israelis bluff" ... well not to be callous, but you were warned. That's the Israeli party line. I don't know if this is typical, but I've read of instances where the warning came late at night and the bombing started the next morning. But I have to ask where all these hundreds of thousands of people are supposed to go, especially given that travelling through a war zone may be just as dangerous as staying put. It may be different for you, being in Newfoundland, but here in Vancouver, I can't imagine what would happen if we had a few hours, or even a few days notice that the city was going to be bombed. I can't see how everyone could possibly get out, or where we'd go. I also have to ask, even if you ignore the deaths, whether the displacement of half a million innocent civilians is justified. We are supposed to praise the IDF for "warning" people and then destroying their lives? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 30, 2006 15:00:22 GMT -5
I believe I heard somewhere thatthe Israelis give a few days notice to the citizens and the UN of when and where they are going to bomb. Why would anyone stay knowing that their area is going to be bombed? Do you still pin the blame on the Israelis for that? If someone stays knowing full well what is planned and decides to "call the Israelis bluff" ... well not to be callous, but you were warned. That's the Israeli party line. I don't know if this is typical, but I've read of instances where the warning came late at night and the bombing started the next morning. But I have to ask where all these hundreds of thousands of people are supposed to go, especially given that travelling through a war zone may be just as dangerous as staying put. It may be different for you, being in Newfoundland, but here in Vancouver, I can't imagine what would happen if we had a few hours, or even a few days notice that the city was going to be bombed. I can't see how everyone could possibly get out, or where we'd go. I also have to ask, even if you ignore the deaths, whether the displacement of half a million innocent civilians is justified. We are supposed to praise the IDF for "warning" people and then destroying their lives? War is ugly .... the blame is two-fold. The Palestinian, Hezbollah, and Lebanon governments are just as much to blame for their policies. So do you blame my grandfather (and possibly your own) for displacing and destoying the lives of all those Germans back in 1944? |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 30, 2006 15:06:48 GMT -5
I believe I heard somewhere that the Israelis give a few days notice to the citizens and the UN of when and where they are going to bomb. Why would anyone stay knowing that their area is going to be bombed? Do you still pin the blame on the Israelis for that? If someone stays knowing full well what is planned and decides to "call the Israelis bluff" ... well not to be callous, but you were warned. I don't think anyone was calling a bluff, Skilly. When you're given orders to observe violations in the ceasefire you have to do just that. If any of these four UN observers refused, they'd be replaced immediately by others on the same mission. That's not to say that these four soldiers didn't think something could go wrong. But, they went in under orders to get a job done. HA was saying that Hezbollah saw an opportunity and decided to exploit it. Well, I think he's right there. But, as HC posted also, Hezbollah has been using these kinds of tactics as did the Iraqis in '91. They chose to hide in populated areas and, like the coalition forces in '91, the Israelis simply aren't buying into it. It's a cowardly tactic akin to terrorism (whether Hezbollah sympathizers agree with it or not). I honestly believe that Skilly. However, IMHO, the Israelis can be blamed for deliberately targeting the UN outpost. They deliberately targeted the whole structure not only with artillery but with laser-guided bombs as well. One of them hit the safety bunker itself and when you think these munitions can be pinpointed to windows and doors .... well .... then why couldn't they target the Hezbollah rocket launchers just as easily? As for the four UN observers, it's not whether or not they should have been there in the first place, IMHO. They've been there since '78. The Israelis knew that if given the orders professional soldiers will not leave. I think the outpost was clearly marked and well-known not only to the Israelis but to every force that has served there over the years; Lebanese notwithstanding. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 30, 2006 16:05:20 GMT -5
That's the Israeli party line. I don't know if this is typical, but I've read of instances where the warning came late at night and the bombing started the next morning. But I have to ask where all these hundreds of thousands of people are supposed to go, especially given that travelling through a war zone may be just as dangerous as staying put. It may be different for you, being in Newfoundland, but here in Vancouver, I can't imagine what would happen if we had a few hours, or even a few days notice that the city was going to be bombed. I can't see how everyone could possibly get out, or where we'd go. I also have to ask, even if you ignore the deaths, whether the displacement of half a million innocent civilians is justified. We are supposed to praise the IDF for "warning" people and then destroying their lives? War is ugly .... the blame is two-fold. The Palestinian, Hezbollah, and Lebanon governments are just as much to blame for their policies. Sure, but the way much of the media tells it, Israel is simply defending itself against terrorists and therefore has carte blanche to do whatever it pleases. It's as if Lebanese lives are worth less than Israeli lives. As far as I'm concerned, the IDF has historically been just as much a terrorist organization as Hezbollah, but that's a separate argument. Are you comparing Hezbollah with Nazi Germany?? This is supposedly Israel's response to a few kidnappings, which may in fact have occured during an Israeli raid inside Lebannon. Israel's stated goal is to set Lebannon (not Hezbollah) back 20 years. Not what I would call a "measured response." |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jul 30, 2006 16:13:57 GMT -5
But, as HC posted also, Hezbollah has been using these kinds of tactics as did the Iraqis in '91. They chose to hide in populated areas and, like the coalition forces in '91, the Israelis simply aren't buying into it. It's a cowardly tactic akin to terrorism (whether Hezbollah sympathizers agree with it or not). I honestly believe that Skilly. Dis, you might know more about this than I do, but I've seen reports that the "hiding among civilians" charge is overstated: Hezbollah doesn't like to be among civilians because of the risk of being tracked and found by Israeli spies. People whose homes have been bombed claim that they were nowhere near any Hezbollah activity. Also, Israel apparently doesn't distinguish between the military and political arms of Hezbollah, which I believe are quite separate. Just believing in Hezbollah's political goals (or living near people who do) is enough to get you bombed by Israel. |
|
