Israel: International force would hinder future IDF operations

[tocqueville]

Last update - 22:21 17/07/2006


French PM joins Blair, Annan in calls for int'l force in Lebanon

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and Agencies

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin on Monday joined British Prime Minister Tony Blair and United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in calling for the deployment of an international force in southern Lebanon, in order to end the spiraling conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Villepin also called for an immediate truce between Israel and Lebanon on humanitarian grounds.

De Villepin was speaking after meeting the Lebanese government in Beirut in an effort to find a solution to the confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739352.html

[wakeme2008]

1. Yes Israel doesn't want any witnesses

:grr:

[hobbit709]

5. That was going to be

my comment too.

[Lindacooks]

2. Isn't that kind of the point?

eom

[mmonk]

9. Yep

Would spoil the war. Cessation of hostilities is not as important as a smashing victory.

[MadHound]

3. Damn, sounds like Israel doesn't want a peaceful solution

Rather it sounds like they want to lay waste to the entire area, and then call it peace.:banghead: Don't they realize that it is with actions like this they are only breeding more hate and resentment, and setting themselves up to be at war again and again.

[treestar]

4. International Force sounds like a good idea

The rest of the world needs to gang up against these people. They will never stop and will just keep blaming each other.

[bemildred]

6. No shit? nt

[High Plains]

7. Good.

[Igel]

8. I doubt Israel would trust the multinational forces, for two

reasons.

They tend to freeze conflicts, and try to be neutral. It's unlikely they'd do much to stop Hezbollah's re-arming. It would stop the conflict, but not resolve the conflict. Kick the can.

Israel also does not trust the UN folk. They've made complaints about UN facilities having far too many Hamas/Fatah folk on their payrolls, and using UN facilities for planning and staging attacks, or hiding people they were after. Same for the Red Crescent vehicles. The UN denies it. But nobody can independently investigate it.

In the case of a Hezbollah attack, what would the UN do? Hezbollah is a non-state entity; it has no way to inflict damage or punish Hezbollah. If Israel attacks in response, the UN forces can lodge a protest. Look at Kosovo after KFOR took over: When Albanians attacked Serbs and Serbian buildings, the UN was helpless. But had Serbia responded, there'd have been hell to pay. Result: De facto UN cover for ethnic cleansing. And this doesn't even take into account that the UN is a political organization, with far more Arab/Islamic countries than Jewish or pro-Israel countries.

Moreover, what would it say if Hezbollah allowed the UN forces in, and not the Lebanese government's?

[tocqueville]

10. it depends completely on the mandate and the professionality.

With a good mandate of retaliatory force, UN peace-keeping has been very efficient in Ivory Coast, Congo and Haiti to take some examples. Besides the UN isn't "run" by Islamic countries. The latest situation proves it, the UN has been unable to condemn Israel because of a preemptive US veto.

The Kosovo example is completely irrelevant, the peace-keeping force there is a NATO-force (with UN mandate) and the incidents you name have been minimal and violence very rapidly stopped without the use of excessive force. Compare it with Iraq with basically the same mission.

The Hizbollah doesn't want the UN either, to be fair. That's why the solution must be IMPOSED on both parts. Of course it won't happen because the Bush administration is going to veto it.

[eyl]

12. Maybe, but

Israel has bad experience specifically with the UNIFIL forces in Lebanon. Specifically:

1) They've refused to intervene when Hizbullah attacked Isreal Most famously, when three Israeli soldiers were kidnapped in late 2000, they stood by, doing nothing but videotaping the incident, even though Hizbullah was using UN uniforms and vehicles as disguise. The UN also refused to even acknowledge the existence of the tape (much less let Israeli representatives see it) for years. I've also heard (though can't confirm) that UN troops, especially during ISrael's occupation of southern Lebanon, would inform Hizbullah of Israeli operations but did not inform Israel of Hizbullah ones.

2) Hizbullah has been known to use UNIFIL as human shields by setting up firing posts right outside their outposts. The UN troops have done nothing to stop them, and this has led to tragic results (most famously at Kfar Qana in 1996).

[Igel]

13. There have been riots and

massive amounts of kidnapping and murders in Haiti. The election results were safeguarded by UN forces, and we know where those ballots wound up. Eventually the UN decided that it was a bit much, and grew a pair.

Villages have been levelled in Congo while the UN forces cowered in their bases; it finally took a few such publicized cases to empower the UN forces there will balls and allow them to shoot in cases other than self-defense. But then the UN-aid-for-underaged-sex scandal continues.

The UN mandate in Kosovo places limits; it's not a case of NATO coming up with an independent mission and rules of engagement and having the UN not care what those are. KFOR smells and acts like a UN force; as in Congo, they're first told to duck and shelter when bullets start flying, and they take action only after a few well-publicized accounts.

But you're right, Hezbollah doesn't want the UN. At least not yet.

[Totallybushed]

11. Well, duh, isn't

that the plan.

And if they would only hinder Palestinian and Hezbollah operations as effectively, they could be a good thing.

But don't hold your breath.