U.N. Resolutions - Do They Work?

[Redskin in Canada]

SECRETARY-GENERAL SHOCKED BY COORDINATED ISRAELI ATTACK ON UNITED NATIONS
OBSERVER POST IN LEBANON, WHICH KILLED TWo PEACEKEEPERS

The following statement by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was issued today in Rome:

I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two United Nations military observers, with two more feared dead.

This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked United Nations post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that United Nations positions would be spared Israeli fire. Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the United Nations 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 United Nations position from attack.

I call on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident, and demand that any further attack on United Nations positions and personnel must stop.

The names and nationalities of those killed are being withheld pending notification of their families. I extend sincere condolences to the families of our fallen peacekeepers.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ ... 77.doc.htm

SECURITY COUNCIL ‘DEEPLY SHOCKED AND DISTRESSED’ BY ISRAELI FIRING ON UNITED NATIONS
OBSERVER POST IN LEBANON, WHICH KILLED FOUR PEACEKEEPERS


Presidential Statement Calls on Israel to Conduct Comprehensive Inquiry;
Stresses International Law Concerning Protection of UN Personnel Must Be Respected

The Security Council today stated it was “deeply shocked and distressed” over the firing by the Israeli Defense Forces on the United Nations observers post in southern Lebanon on 25 July, which caused the death of four peacekeepers, and called upon the Government of Israel to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the incident.

In a statement read out by Jean-Marc de la Sablière ( France), its President for July, the Council extended its condolences to the families of the victims and expressed its sympathies to the Governments of Austria, Canada, China and Finland.

Expressing its deep concern about the safety and security of United Nations personnel, the Council stressed that Israel and all concerned parties must comply fully with their obligations under the rules and principles of international humanitarian law relating to the protection of United Nations and associated personnel. It underlined the importance of ensuring that such personnel were not the object of attack.

The meeting began at 3:40 p.m. and ended at 3:45 p.m.

Presidential Statement

The full text of presidential statement S/PRST/2006/34:

“The Security Council is deeply shocked and distressed by the firing by the Israeli Defense Forces on a United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon on 25 July 2006, which caused the death of four United Nations military observers.

“The Security Council extends its deepest condolences to the families of those victims and expresses its sympathies to the Governments of Austria, Canada, China and Finland.

“The Security Council calls upon the Government of Israel to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into this incident, taking into account any relevant information from the United Nations authorities, and make the results public as soon as possible.

“The Security Council is deeply concerned about safety and security of United Nations personnel and, in this regard, stresses that Israel and all concerned parties must comply fully with their obligations under the rules and principles of international humanitarian law related to the protection of the United Nations and its associated personnel, and underlines the importance of ensuring that United Nations personnel are not the object of attack.

“The Security Council expresses its deep concern for Lebanese and Israeli civilian casualties and suffering, the destruction of civil infrastructure and the rising number of internally displaced people in Lebanon.

“The Security Council will remain seized of this matter.”

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8788.doc.htm

And these are some of the most important nations that are being asked by the US to work with the US. Nice going guys.

[1niksder]

SECRETARY-GENERAL SHOCKED BY COORDINATED ISRAELI ATTACK ON UNITED NATIONS
OBSERVER POST IN LEBANON, WHICH KILLED TWo PEACEKEEPERS

The following statement by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan was issued today in Rome:

I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two United Nations military observers, with two more feared dead.

This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked United Nations post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that United Nations positions would be spared Israeli fire. Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the United Nations 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 United Nations position from attack.

I call on the Government of Israel to conduct a full investigation into this very disturbing incident, and demand that any further attack on United Nations positions and personnel must stop.

The names and nationalities of those killed are being withheld pending notification of their families. I extend sincere condolences to the families of our fallen peacekeepers.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ ... 77.doc.htm

SECURITY COUNCIL ‘DEEPLY SHOCKED AND DISTRESSED’ BY ISRAELI FIRING ON UNITED NATIONS
OBSERVER POST IN LEBANON, WHICH KILLED FOUR PEACEKEEPERS


Presidential Statement Calls on Israel to Conduct Comprehensive Inquiry;
Stresses International Law Concerning Protection of UN Personnel Must Be Respected

The Security Council today stated it was “deeply shocked and distressed” over the firing by the Israeli Defense Forces on the United Nations observers post in southern Lebanon on 25 July, which caused the death of four peacekeepers, and called upon the Government of Israel to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the incident.

In a statement read out by Jean-Marc de la Sablière ( France), its President for July, the Council extended its condolences to the families of the victims and expressed its sympathies to the Governments of Austria, Canada, China and Finland.

Expressing its deep concern about the safety and security of United Nations personnel, the Council stressed that Israel and all concerned parties must comply fully with their obligations under the rules and principles of international humanitarian law relating to the protection of United Nations and associated personnel. It underlined the importance of ensuring that such personnel were not the object of attack.

The meeting began at 3:40 p.m. and ended at 3:45 p.m.

Presidential Statement

The full text of presidential statement S/PRST/2006/34:

“The Security Council is deeply shocked and distressed by the firing by the Israeli Defense Forces on a United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon on 25 July 2006, which caused the death of four United Nations military observers.

“The Security Council extends its deepest condolences to the families of those victims and expresses its sympathies to the Governments of Austria, Canada, China and Finland.

“The Security Council calls upon the Government of Israel to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into this incident, taking into account any relevant information from the United Nations authorities, and make the results public as soon as possible.

“The Security Council is deeply concerned about safety and security of United Nations personnel and, in this regard, stresses that Israel and all concerned parties must comply fully with their obligations under the rules and principles of international humanitarian law related to the protection of the United Nations and its associated personnel, and underlines the importance of ensuring that United Nations personnel are not the object of attack.

“The Security Council expresses its deep concern for Lebanese and Israeli civilian casualties and suffering, the destruction of civil infrastructure and the rising number of internally displaced people in Lebanon.

“The Security Council will remain seized of this matter.”

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8788.doc.htm

And these are some of the most important nations that are being asked by the US to work with the US. Nice going guys.

This is a fluid situation. What is being said today doesn't match what was said the day before. This is because the facts are still coming in

They said it was an accident...so until proven otherwise we have to take their word for it. It's unfortunate that 'accidents' happen a lot during war.

What part of an -agreement-, a repeated -announcement- and a -pledge- is so difficult to understand?

What part of "deliberate attack" from the number 1 diplomat in the world is it so difficult to understand? Anybody else would have said murder.

If it was no certainty about a deliberate attack a diplomat would have never used those carefully crafted words.

This was a deliberate crime but also an act of intimidation! It is a threat to all UN forces!

Only problem is, as if history needed to prove it a million times, such actions are counterproductive and non-combatants and innocent civilians will suffer further pain. What a mess!

You've based a lot on a statement that is now being backed away from.

A statement made by a man sitting in a office in NY, right after the incident occured. It won't hurt to get all of the facts on this before blame is put on anyone.
If the UN personell are there to observe the peace on the boarder and a full fledge war breaks out. Should they have been there?
If the Canadian Major knew and wrote that Hezbollah were in and around his location on the daily bases wouldn't the IDF know? Should they have bombed the UN post knowing there were UN personell there? Did they know that the UN had left people in the area?
The peacekeepers weren't safe during UNAMIR, UNISOM, or any other UNO... that I can thing of. They are needed but almost never save.

Hezbollah could have been firing rockets from the post, the fire them from whatever vantage point they can find... Big letters reading UN on a big old red cross on the side of a vehicle doesn't realyy matter to them as long as they don't receive return artilliary

[Redskin in Canada]

However, I suspect that I have done far more in such areas than YOU ever have, including being shot at during a humanitarian mission in a third world country.

Funny thing about a board like this one is that you have absolutely no idea who you are exchanging views with or what I have been through. So, I leave you speculating all you want. On the other hand, I do know from the little information you provide that the whole peace-keeping operation process is something utterly unknown to you. Worse yet, the little information you have spills into prejudice.

Crap. This is NOT about US Mistakes at the hands of an egotistical president. It IS about something that is happening NOW, at the hands of the UN.

If this statement made any sense, I would respond to it.

There are many more such stories. The problem is the nature of the UN... not the individuals.

We can exchange many horror stories about tragic casualties in war on -any- side. Name a war and I can tell you a story about soldiers left to die alone. If that was the measure of success by -any- side, there would be only failures.

and, that wall, in DC? How many friends do YOU have on it? I visit mine as often as I can.

A few people I can not call them friends but they were relatives of friends. Interestingly, mostly non-US born.

But! I also know -many- Vietnamese friends who lost civilian and combatant relatives and friends. How many on the opposing side do you know?

You see, that is the problem. When people put mirrors in their windows, they only see their own reflection and think that their image is the world. Have you thought for a second how many orphans are being left alone right now in Lebanon harbouring a deep hunger for revenge at any cost?

Why is it so difficult to come to the conclusion that violence and war can only bring more of the same one way or another even to the most powerful nation on earth?

Why is it so difficult to understand that the pursuit of a negotiated peace takes greater courage than war?

I do believe peace is possible. I know that Yitzak Rabin could have reached it. Israel and the Arab States are the victims of the most radical elements in their own societies. Sadly, you can find the same trend developing within the USA.

[Redskin in Canada]

You've based a lot on a statement that is now being backed away from.

This is the -OFFICIAL- position of the Secretary-General and the Security Coundil -TODAY-. There are no higher echelons in the UN that can speak on this issue.

You can try to spin this all you want, the facts are the facts.

So, Is it now the fault of the peace-keepers that they were bombed? It reminds me of the story about the rape victim that is accused by the perpetrators of the crime of being provoked into raping her in the first place simply because she was on the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why is it so difficult to understand that the real enemies are the most radical elements on -both- sides rather than one side at the expense of another? Why is it so difficult to understand that -any- form of modus vivendi will need the support of all nations on earth through the only international organization capable to help?

Don't you see that the most radical elements on both sidea are trying to destroy any UN presence to proceed with far more radical destruction?

The UN peace-keepers are under fire and instead of supporting them you are blaming them now?

[yupchagee]

You've based a lot on a statement that is now being backed away from.

This is the -OFFICIAL- position of the Secretary-General and the Security Coundil -TODAY-. There are no higher echelons in the UN that can speak on this issue.

You can try to spin this all you want, the facts are the facts.

So, Is it now the fault of the peace-keepers that they were bombed? It reminds me of the story about the rape victim that is accused by the perpetrators of the crime of being provoked into raping her in the first place simply because she was on the wrong place at the wrong time.

Why is it so difficult to understand that the real enemies are the most radical elements on -both- sides rather than one side at the expense of another? Why is it so difficult to understand that -any- form of modus vivendi will need the support of all nations on earth through the only international organization capable to help?

Don't you see that the most radical elements on both sidea are trying to destroy any UN presence to proceed with far more radical destruction?

The UN peace-keepers are under fire and instead of supporting them you are blaming them now?

Define "radical elements". Are Israelis being "radical" when they want to live. That they are unwilling to just sit quietly while their citizens are attacked & killed?

The fact that a "high authority" says something doesn't make it true. Several members of this board seem rather selective in deciding who is an authority whose word cannot be questioned. They assume that anything an American leader says is a lie, but anything foreign leaders say must be true. The canadian PM isn't blaming Israel for what happened.

[Redskin in Canada]

Define "radical elements".

Yitzak Rabin's assassin and all his fundamentalist supporters, for example.

Fundamentalism seems to have been mostly identified with Islam in western media. The truth is that these irrational movements have been spreading among Christians and Jews as well with equally devastating consequences.

[Redskin in Canada]

The canadian PM isn't blaming Israel for what happened.

You are right. But to be fair, look also for other Canadian views here:

Wife of Canadian UN observer prays for a 'miracle'Last Updated Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:39:13 EDT
CBC News
The wife of the Canadian UN observer believed to have been killed in Lebanon this week says she feels her husband is still alive and wants people to pray for his safe return.

"I'm begging for a miracle and I'm asking the world to pray," Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener said at a news conference on Thursday in Kingston, Ont., where she lived with Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, 43.

The soldier and three other observers from Austria, China and Finland had taken cover in a bomb shelter under a building marked as a UN post when they were attacked. Hess-von Kruedener is missing and presumed dead.

But his wife believes otherwise.

"If there's one person that could survive this that would be my husband. He's had extensive training, and I'm very confident in him and so are his co-workers," Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener said.

She blamed Israel for the attack, which involved precision guided missiles, saying she believed it was intentional.

She called on the United Nations to expand its search perimeter beyond the bombed bunker site, saying that it's possible her husband had fled the area and needed help.

Hess-von Kruedener also criticized the media for reporting that her husband was dead.

"He is presumed [dead] — you can presume away all you want — but nothing has been confirmed," she said.

Canadian UN observer an eager soldier

Hess-von Kruedener, known as Wolf to his friends and colleagues, was an eager soldier with many friends, said Capt. Bernard Dionne, a public affairs officer at Canadian Forces Base Kingston.

"He was actually an instructor here not too long ago, so we've known him well," Dionne said. "We're certainly close as well to his family through this difficult time."

Over his career, the Canadian soldier served as a UN observer in Cyprus, Congo and Bosnia.

In recent years, Hess-von Kruedener taught soldiers the skills needed to be a UN military observer at the Peace Support Training Centre in Kingston.

Last October, he joined the UN truce and supervision organization. His latest mission was slated to end in August.

Hess-von Kruedener also has two grown children, a stepson and a daughter from his first marriage.

Harper dismisses deliberate target accusation

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has suggested that Israel deliberately targeted the UN post, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the accusation.

Harper has said his government intends to investigate the circumstances that led to the incident. He also said he wants to know why the UN outpost "remained manned during what is now, more or less, a war."

Bill Graham, the Liberal party's interim leader, criticized Harper's remarks as "completely unacceptable," saying the prime minister unfairly placed blame on the UN soldiers.

"Mr. Harper showed irresponsibility by putting into question Canada's traditional position contributing to peace," Graham said.


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)

He said he was confident that Israel would conduct a thorough investigation.

"Israel has a judicial system without equal in the world, and I have confidence that an inquiry can establish the facts," said Graham.

Israel balks at joint investigation

Israel's UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, said Thursday Israel would not allow the UN to be involved in any investigation of why the post was struck.

"Israel has never agreed to a joint investigation, and I don't think that if anything happened in this country, or in Britain or in Italy or in France, the government of that country would agree to a joint investigation," he said.

He also ruled out major UN involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon, saying more professional and better-trained troops were needed for such a volatile situation.

The UN Security Council unanimously approved a watered-down statement Thursday expressing it was "deeply shocked and distressed at Israel's bombing of the UN post."

The initial draft proposed by China would have had the council express shock and distress at Israel's "apparently deliberate targeting" of the UN base and condemn "this co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long-established and clearly marked UN post."

But the United States insisted on dropping any condemnation or reference to the possibility that Israel deliberately targeted the post.

Gillerman called the statement "very fair and balanced."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... gston.html

[yupchagee]

Define "radical elements".

Yitzak Rabin's assassin and all his fundamentalist supporters, for example.

Fundamentalism seems to have been mostly identified with Islam in western media. The truth is that these irrational movements have been spreading among Christians and Jews as well with equally devastating consequences.

Rabin's asassin was 1 man who is now serving a life sentence. Equating him to the genocidal Islamists can't be due to ignorance, no one is that naive. This makes as much sense as blaming the US for the JFK assination. This can only come from a visceral hatred of Israel. The question is why this hatred. Do Israelis have different color skin? No. Different color eyes? No. Different hair? Shorter? Taller? Fatter? thinner? No. No. No. No & NO. What's left?????

[yupchagee]

This is the -OFFICIAL- position of the Secretary-General and the Security Coundil -TODAY-. There are no higher echelons in the UN that can speak on this issue.

The Ccanadian PM isn't blaming Israel for what happened.
You are right. But to be fair, look also for other Canadian views here:

Can you see the contradiction here?[/quote]

[Redskin in Canada]

What's left?????

The ability to work with the non-fundamentalist forces among Arabs and Jews. There are good people on -both- sides committed to the peace process. The tragedy is that their voices have been drowned in a sea of hatred and a never ending spiral of eye-for-an-eye violence.

In your anger and desperation, you have it all wrong. Many of us are committed to preserve the security and integrity of the State of Israel. As committed as to the integrity and security of an eventual Palestinian State. There is no other future but that of mutiual co-existence. The only question is, How many more lives on both sides have to be wasted before we apply some reason and courage to pursue a negotiated peace?

[yupchagee]

Why is it so difficult to come to the conclusion that violence and war can only bring more of the same one way or another even to the most powerful nation on earth?

Why is it so difficult to understand that the pursuit of a negotiated peace takes greater courage than war?

I do believe peace is possible. I know that Yitzak Rabin could have reached it. Israel and the Arab States are the victims of the most radical elements in their own societies. Sadly, you can find the same trend developing within the USA.

This naive in the extreme. If a diplomatic solution were possible, it would have been reached decades ago. The simple reality is that Arabs do not accept the existance of Israel. How do you "negotiate" with those who want you dead?

[Redskin in Canada]

How do you "negotiate" with those who want you dead?

Read about and study the life and work of Yitzak Rabin. Try it.

[dnpmakkah]

Hisbollah was created in the '80's. In part, it was a response to the power vacuum created by the PLO being forced out. Partly it was fueled by the Shiite extremists who had recently taken over Iran.

Is there any part of it because of the invasion/occupation that continued for years on the part of Israel? Maybe not the main factor but is there the slighest chance that Hezbollah was created due to the (dare I say it) the faults of Israel? I 'm sorry I know what I just said was blasphemous but I just wanted to ask.

[yupchagee]

How do you "negotiate" with those who want you dead?

Read about and study the life and work of Yitzak Rabin. Try it.

I'm quite familiar with Rabin. I know what he was trying to do. Many others have tried with the same results. Not all problems have diplomatic solutions.

[dnpmakkah]

Nice post 1niksder. Yes it does seem that Lebanon will not have much say in its own affairs. I know Israel has stated they are at war with Hezbollah and not Lebanon but it really doesnt seem that way.

National and civilian infastructure is being sliced in half and the world is literaly just watching this atrocity continue on a daily basis. The world needs to act on it now before we have a humanitarian disaster on our hands the likes of which we haven't seen since the holocaust.

I know when Hitler went on his spree....the world just waited and watched for many years until of course the invasion of Poland. Only then was there reaction but it was too late...so many millions had died.

This is where America might get itself in trouble. They veto anything that condemns Israel on the basis of "right to defend herself"...but seeks the worlds support in condemning Iran for developing nuclear energy (a right that it has under the NNPT). This is like a freakin car accident waiting to happen.

[yupchagee]

Nice post 1niksder. Yes it does seem that Lebanon will not have much say in its own affairs. I know Israel has stated they are at war with Hezbollah and not Lebanon but it really doesnt seem that way.

National and civilian infastructure is being sliced in half and the world is literaly just watching this atrocity continue on a daily basis. The world needs to act on it now before we have a humanitarian disaster on our hands the likes of which we haven't seen since the holocaust.

I know when Hitler went on his spree....the world just waited and watched for many years until of course the invasion of Poland. Only then was there reaction but it was too late...so many millions had died.

This is where America might get itself in trouble. They veto anything that condemns Israel on the basis of "right to defend herself"...but seeks the worlds support in condemning Iran for developing nuclear energy (a right that it has under the NNPT). This is like a freakin car accident waiting to happen.

Comparing Israel to Hitler? Why am I not surprised?

[Countertrey]

I leave you speculating all you want.

I suspect that, had you experience, you would say so... soldiers pretty much speak the same language.

On the other hand, I do know from the little information you provide that the whole peace-keeping operation process is something utterly unknown to you. Worse yet, the little information you have spills into prejudice.

Pleasant, that. What I know... multiple disasters in Lebanon, which, by the way, incudes the deaths of over 200 US Marines. Srebrenica: assurances of protection to thousands of Bosnians... murdered under the eyes of the UN. The UN refusing to acknowledge the authority of the ICRC to meet with military prisoners under it's control in Africa. The Congo, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti. Hundreds of deaths.

The point is, the United Nations, as often as not, relies on Providence for mission success. Unfortunately, Providence cannot be ordered up, like a pizza. You DO NOT plan a mission for at least a battalion of infantry, and then send two unarmed officers to execute it.

I know and understand peacekeeping operations well enough, as I trained many years for them. I also know that I would have no difficulty serving under US, British, or NATO command. However, the UN has repeatedly demonstrated it's lack of competence in this area. If you are comfortable conducting a partially planned, and poorly supported mission OF ANY TYPE, feel free. Pardon me if I think the risk you take is far greater than any likely benefit.

If this statement made any sense, I would respond to it.

You were attempting to distract from the discussion by invoking US history of 35 years ago. Nope. English really isn't that hard.

We can exchange many horror stories about tragic casualties in war on -any- side. Name a war and I can tell you a story about soldiers left to die alone. If that was the measure of success by -any- side, there would be only failures.

Casualties are only tragic when despite all reasonable efforts and plans, they occur. When it is because leadership failed to plan, or to follow through on plans, it is criminal.

There is no way this outpost should have continued to have been manned. It no longer served a viable purpose. Your rage at your casualty is misplaced. He has told you who was responsible. You are not listening....

Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener, Canadian Forces:

"What I can tell you is this: we have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both artillery and aerial bombing. The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity. "

Let me interpret. Hezbollah was firing at the IDF from RIGHT NEXT TO this outpost. They were literally using the UN soldiers for cover. The IDF had two choices... pretend there was no Hezbollah there, and do nothing while Hezbollah fired with impunity, or do the best it could to pick off the cowards hiding behing the UN. It's mission had been fully compromized. The UN command should have immediately pulled these troops from harm.

Interestingly, mostly non-US born.

Multiple hundreds on the wall are not US citizens, many are Canadian. Again, what's your point?

Why is it so difficult to understand that the pursuit of a negotiated peace takes greater courage than war?

Here's what I know. Hezbollah has sworn to fight until Israel no longer exists. Hamas has sworn to fight until Israel no longer exists. Iran consistently says that Israel must be destroyed.

Yet, you expect Israel to trust them? You only get one chance to get it right when you are surrounded by millions who are sworn to kill you.

On the other hand, all Hezbollah and Hamas ever had to do to gain peace is put their weapons on safe. Unfortunately, that still leaves Israel intact, now doesn't it?

I find it facinating that you suggest that I am a radical... all because I don't trust the UN to run peacekeeping missions.

Peace.

[dnpmakkah]

Comparing Israel to Hitler? Why am I not surprised?

If you want to see it that way...please continue to do so. I am not linking the two because it is sin to do so. I am however saying that the world can't stand by and watch this happen as it happened years ago.

[1niksder]

You've based a lot on a statement that is now being backed away from.

This is the -OFFICIAL- position of the Secretary-General and the Security Coundil -TODAY-. There are no higher echelons in the UN that can speak on this issue.

His position is still located in NY and not on the ground where he can get all of the Facts

You can try to spin this all you want, the facts are the facts.

I could spin this if I wanted to but I have kow reason to. The fact is you nor Koffi know what the orders of the pilot had when he took off or the reason for his mission, you only have the outcome of a bombing and say you have all the fact. Who's spinning what here.

So, Is it now the fault of the peace-keepers that they were bombed? It reminds me of the story about the rape victim that is accused by the perpetrators of the crime of being provoked into raping her in the first place simply because she was on the wrong place at the wrong time.

OK now you're just being silly, I say wait for the facts or explain why UNIFIL had people in a week old war zone

[Why is it so difficult to understand that the real enemies are the most radical elements on -both- sides rather than one side at the expense of another? Why is it so difficult to understand that -any- form of modus vivendi will need the support of all nations on earth through the only international organization capable to help?

Why is so hard to understand that the UN isn't getting the job done. Peacekeepers aren't effective in war zones, and Lebanon has always been a war zone.

Don't you see that the most radical elements on both sidea are trying to destroy any UN presence to proceed with far more radical destruction?

The UN peace-keepers are under fire and instead of supporting them you are blaming them now?

Learn to read dude I haven't placed blame on anyone. I've said Israel is doing what it has to do, the UN is not effective in Lebonon and Lebonon is caught in the middle. You are the one running around pointing fingers, which is why I replied. Show me where I blamed the UN. I asked why the observes were there after the fighting broke out. If your answer to that question points blame at the UN then...

[Countertrey]

How do you "negotiate" with those who want you dead?

Read about and study the life and work of Yitzak Rabin. Try it.

Yitzak Rabin NEVER negotiated peace with Hezbollah or Hamas. He negotiated with the PLO, and several of the surrounding Arab nations. There was a reason for this.

The PLO abondoned it's demand that Israel be destroyed.

Hezbollah and Hamas?

[Countertrey]

The Globe and Mail
Insider Edition

Kofi Annan's rush to judgement



LEWIS MACKENZIE

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

On hearing the news that a United Nations observation post manned by four unarmed peacekeepers at the nexus of the Israeli, Lebanese and Syrian borders was struck by an Israeli bomb, an uncharacteristically forceful Kofi Annan bolted out of a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora to proclaim his shock at the "apparently deliberate targeting" by Israel Defence Forces of the post. The UN Secretary-General went on to say the UN would conduct a full investigation. A curious statement, considering his comment that the IDF intentionally targeted the observers. Case closed, n'est-ce pas? Not quite.

The blast on Tuesday claimed the lives of Major Paeta Derek Hess-von Kruedener, a Canadian serving with the UN Truce Supervision Organization mission in southern Lebanon, and three other UN soldiers. On July 18, Major Hess-von Kruedener had sent a number of his colleagues, including regimental officers such as myself, an e-mail describing what the situation was like at his location since the Israeli attacks began against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"Based on the intensity and volatility of this current situation and the unpredictability of both sides (Hezbollah and Israel), and given the operational tempo of the Hezbollah and the IDF, we are not safe to venture out to conduct our normal patrol activities. We have now switched to Observation Post Duties and are observing any and all violations as they occur."

UNTSO was established in 1948 and is the UN's oldest mission. Canada has participated since its inception, and one of its current roles has been to monitor the ceasefire in the Golan Heights after the 1967 Six-Day War. When there had been a semblance of peace, UN monitoring made considerable sense, so minor violations could be dealt with quickly. But to leave the observers in place with a war under way stretches the credibility of the UN's operational judgment close to the breaking point.
The penultimate paragraph of Major Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail is prophetic, to say the least: "The closest artillery has landed within two metres of our position and the closest 1,000-pound aerial bomb has landed 100 metres from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but has rather been due to tactical necessity."

This is what we call "veiled speech" in military jargon. It means hiding the truth in lingo that outsiders would not necessarily understand. What he is saying translates roughly as: "We have Hezbollah fighters all over our position engaging the IDF and using us as shields. They will probably stay, hoping that the IDF won't target them for fear of hitting us."

Surprising? Not really.

I have served in another mission where one side constantly set up its weapon systems, including mortars, in and around hospitals, medical clinics, mosques and, yes, UN positions, knowing full well that, when it engaged its enemies and received return fire, it would make for compelling TV as the networks covered the civilian carnage. (When they took up positions around my soldiers, I advised their leaders that I would authorize my soldiers to kill them within the hour if they didn't withdraw. Fortunately, as I was not an unarmed observer, I was in a position to do that.) In many cases, the weapon systems were moved immediately after firing, and their positions around civilians were abandoned before innocents paid the price for their despicable techniques. You have to admit this technique helps to win the PR war, which often is as important as the fighting one.

Certainly, the Secretary-General is familiar with this technique, having been the UN undersecretary of peacekeeping in the horrific 1990s, when the UN was floundering in the Balkans, Somalia and Rwanda.

For that reason alone -- and despite his soft-pedalling yesterday that the Israeli Prime Minister "definitely believes [the bombing was] a mistake" -- Mr. Annan should not have been so quick to pass judgment on an event that quite likely was not as it seemed in the hours following the tragedy.

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.

Hmmm.... a Canadian Major General.... A former "blue hat"... says WHAT???

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060727.wxcomack27a/BNStory/specialComment/home

[Redskin in Canada]

So, after all is said and done, after so many deaths. after so much destruction and pain, Where does -everybody- turn to resolve even a temporary cease-fire solution to this mess? The UN!

Sheeeesh! I must be a genius. But I am not. As battered and criticised as it is, the UN is ALL we have. All the criticisms that I read here are the result of a lack of fundamental understanding about the organization and its operations. But I am not surprised. The UN does not march at the pace dictated by -any- one government. This will trigger the rage of some members of those governments and their puppet media/propaganda organisations. But take comfort guys, the US is -not- the only country in a position to do that.

Being in the middle of high level international policy disputes is what the UN is all about. It should not be surprising that trying to be impartial places the organization and its the staff in the cross-fire of politicians, media/propaganda and even armies around the world.

Blair to press Bush on Mideast
British prime minister to push for U.N. resolution on cease-fire

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair headed to Washington Friday where he was expected to press President George W. Bush on a swift solution to the Middle East crisis.

A British government spokesman traveling with Blair said the prime minister believes that the United States will be willing to support a U.N. resolution next week in the expectation that Israel will by then have sufficiently weakened Hezbollah with its military action.

Friday's meeting follows a conference of key Middle East decision makers in Rome this week which failed to agree on an immediate cease-fire as the U.S. backed by Britain insisted any halt to violence should be linked to a wider effort to permanently disarm Hezbollah.

Blair meanwhile faces pressure at home to salvage his diplomatic reputation after an eavesdropped conversation between the two leaders at a recent G8 summit appeared to show the British prime minister's deferential relationship with Bush.

Since the outbreak of fighting between Israel and Lebanese guerrillas, Blair has put himself at odds with Arab nations and European allies by refusing to call for an immediate cease-fire -- echoing U.S. policy.

Like Bush, Blair has said a cease-fire will only work if conditions are first put in place to ensure both sides keep it.

With his popularity within the UK already tarnished by his staunch support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Blair has faced further criticism for appearing to blindly follow Washington as "George Bush's poodle."

'Yo Blair!'

"Tony Blair is under maximum political pressure at home because of the overheard conversation at the G8 summit," says CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley.

"The so-called 'Yo Blair!' conversation between him and President Bush has really underlined the feeling of many of the British public that it's really much too much a master-servant relationship. People want Tony Blair to show more independence from Bush over action in the Lebanon."

Oakley said Blair's latest diplomacy push did not represent a policy U-turn, but an indication that Britain believed Washington was ready to take a U.N. path.

"Mr. Blair will press the U.S. to support a U.N. resolution as early as next week, for a kind of two-phase cease-fire," Oakley said.

"An initial cease-fire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel with a small border force going in, a buffer force to be followed by a disarming of Hezbollah and an extension of the authority of Lebanese government forces.

"The expectation among British diplomats is that the U.S. is ready to make this kind of U.N. move, feeling that Israel has now inflicted sufficient damage on Hezbollah."

But Oakley cautioned against expecting any major breakthrough from the trip, which was arranged prior to the current crisis primarily to promote British business interests and for a meeting with media magnate Rupert Murdoch.

"It is only a two hour meeting at the White House with President Bush and something that was organized before the current Middle East crisis."

[Redskin in Canada]

Not all problems have diplomatic solutions.

I am glad that Muhammad Anwar Sadat, Golda Meir, Menahem Begin and Jimmy Carter did not know this important axiom of Foreign Policy.

[Redskin in Canada]

[Hmmm.... a Canadian Major General.... A former "blue hat"... says WHAT???

Lloyd Axworthy responded to this very statement yesterday itself. His views together with those of the peace-keeper's wife reinforce the view that -he- and other peace-keepers felt that it was imperative to stay -notwithstanding- the enormous danger surrounding them. I doubt you know who Lloyd is but you can look it up.

Everytime that there are casualties, there will be somebody that in -hindsight- and several thousand miles away is wiser than those on the ground. I am not surprised. All I say is that if those on the ground felt that their duty was to stay and they never requested to be moved, they should have stayed. I know I would have done the same thing.

Peace.

[Redskin in Canada]

I suspect that, had you experience, you would say so... soldiers pretty much speak the same language.

I leave you to speculate further. Some people are having some fun reading this.

But on the last point, you forget how divisive is the experience about those who served in past wars. Many of those whose names are -not- on display in that wall in Washington became some of the most effective activists opposed to that war, for example. Today, some of the most effective activists agains the current war are the relatives of casualties in Iraq.

Look, I know this discussion hits home with you and still might place dangers in ways nobody wants to. But what you do not know is that this debate hits home closer than you "suspect".