Some Truth about the UN Peacekeepers, IDF, and Hezbollah

[oberliner]

A critical difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives only look at facts which support their argument while liberals are able to present the facts in their totality.

We liberals are able to do this because, as Stephen Colbert and others have noted, the truth itself has a liberal bias.

Anyone who wishes to form an opinion regarding the events that led to the recent deaths of the UN Peacekeeping forces should feel a responsibility to look at all the facts surrounding the incident before coming to a definitive conclusion.

There are two important points regarding the incident that I think need to be highlighted and acknowledged by those who wish to come to an informed conclusion about what happened.

1. Hezbollah forces systemically set up rocket launches alongside UN bases, either in the hope that Israel will think twice before firing back, or with the cynical aim of generating bad publicity for Israel by enticing it to bomb peacekeeping forces.

The commander of the UN forces in South Lebanon is General Alain Pellegrini. He is quoted as saying in reference to Hezbollah:

“They are taking the cover of villages or UN positions to act, hoping this proximity to people will be a problem to Israeli troops when they have to respond.”

2. UN peacekeepers begged the Israelis to stop shelling the post, yet they continued to do so.

Israeli forces clearly are not deterred by the fact that there are UN peacekeepers in the line of fire when they attack Hezbollah members.

Israel does not take into account, when attacking Hezbollah, that UN members could be wounded or killed in the process.

A likely timeline that can be constructed from looking at the whole picture is:

1. Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel from a location near a UN outpost.
2. Israel attacked Hezbollah forces with relentless force.
3. UN forces pleaded with Israel to stop firing as they were in danger of being hit.
4. Israel ignored those pleas and continued attacking Hezbollah showing little to no concern over whether or not UN forces might be hit in the process.
5. The UN outpost was hit by Israeli fire, killing 4 UN peacekeepers.
6. Israel is condemned and held responsible for these deaths by most of the international community.
7. Hezbollah began its attacks in proximity to the UN outpost precisely in the hopes of such an outcome.

I do not believe that Israel attempts to kill UN peacekeeping forces on purpose.

I will, however, stand with everyone who argues that Israel does not exercise an acceptable level of concern for killing non-combatants in its attempts to fight Hezbollah.

[msongs]

1. a "faith based" analysis of the situation - "I do not believe..."

there is plenty of blame to go around, and you are correct that it is not a black/white or good/bad issue.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/howarddean2008.htm

[chimpymustgo]

2. Why keep fantasizing rationales for Israeli murder of innocents?

Your "likely" scenario is completely unsupportable. The facts stand. Israel bombed that outpost for hours, despite desperate calls from the UN observers from inside.

It's murder.

[oberliner]

4. why include that fact but not the other?

Israel bombed the area around the outpost for hours.
Hezbollah was attacking IDF forces from the area around the outpost.

Both should be condemned.

It is a callous disregard by both parties for noncombatants.

It's not murder.

[Spazito]

21. At the time Israel bombed the UN post, Hezbollah WAS NOT

firing in the immediate vacinity. That is a fact.

[Turbineguy]

3. An additional point:

Perhaps the Israelis are not concerned about hitting UN Forces as these forces have done nothing to stop Hezbollah from setting up positions in the area. It may not be the fault of the Peacekeeper Soldiers themselves, it may be the rules of engagement they work under. But it does put paid any idea that Hezbollah was able to set up these positions without knowledge of UN higher-ups who took no action, but that could be incompetence more than anything else.

[oberliner]

5. good point

thanks for adding it!

[sweetheart]

6. how long does it take to "set up"

its not a poured concrete installation, but some sort of tube with a few legs, yes?..
something that could be wheeled out and set up in minutes.

As well, is not the launcher then taken away after shooting?

[aceman2373]

7. You responded before I could...

That is exactly it. Why didn't the UN forces knowing, and seeing that Hezbollah was setting up positions around there base do something about it? The truth is they were scared and incompetent.

[SidDithers]

19. They were unarmed observers...

What would you have them do?

Perhaps you should join the rest of us in the reality-based community.

Sid

[w4rma]

30. WTF is an **observer** going to do against anyone that is armed? (nt)

[malaise]

8. The only truth is that the UN

has now moved its peacekeepers which is what Israel wanted. EFuggingNOUGH!!

[The Stranger]

9. I'm sure we could come up with facts to claim we didn't land on the moo

But that would be a ridiculous exercise in futility, as is this one.

The post was attacked to make the UN leave and to send a statement of warning to any other third-party nation seeking to send peacekeepers.

So far, it has had its intended effect.

[tocqueville]

10. want facts ? remember the Qana shelling 1996

Qana shelling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Qana shelling took place on April 18, 1996 in Qana, a village located southeast of Tyre, Lebanon. Qana is one possible site for the Biblical Cana, where Jesus is said by John 2 to have turned water into wine. Amid heavy fighting between the Israeli Defense Forces and Hezbollah during "Operation Grapes of Wrath", a Fijian UNIFIL compound in the village was shelled by Israeli artillery. Around 800 Lebanese civilians had taken refuge there to escape the fighting, of whom 106 were killed and around 116 others injured. Four UNIFIL soldiers were also seriously injured. <1><2> The event has sometimes been referred to as the Qana massacre, for example by Human Rights Watch<3> and the BBC.<4>

Background

In April 1996, a cease-fire that had ended the July 1993 fighting between Hezbollah and Israel broke down due to violations, which involved several attacks on Israeli population centers by Hezbollah. During the five weeks of fighting between March 4 and April 10, seven Israeli soldiers, three Lebanese civilians and at least one Hezbollah fighter were killed. The tally of injured was sixteen Israeli soldiers, seven Lebanese civilians, and six Israeli civilians.<5> On April 9, in response to the cease fire violations, Maj.-Gen. Amiram Levine declared: "The residents in south Lebanon who are under the responsibility of Hezbollah will be hit harder, and the Hezbollah will be hit harder, and we will find the way to act correctly and quickly."<6> On April 11th, after initial strikes against Hezbollah positions, Israel, through SLA radio stations, warned residents in forty-four towns and villages in southern Lebanon, to evacuate within twenty four hours.<7>


Operation Grapes of Wrath

Within forty-eight hours, Israel launched the military campaign known as Operation Grapes of Wrath. On April 11, Israel bombarded Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and Beirut first, with artillery and later laser guided missiles. On April 13, Israeli warships initiated a blockade against Beirut, Sidon and Tyre, Lebanon's main ports of entry. Meanwhile, Hezbollah continuously bombarded northern Israel with Katyusha rockets. Israel continued to bomb Hezbollah installations.

Shelling of United Nations Compound

The scene shortly after the attackThe conflict intensified and thousands of Lebanese civilians sought to flee the area and find safe refuge from the fighting. By 14 April, 745 people were occupying the United Nations compound at Qana. More than 800 were there on April 18.<8>

According to a U.N. report, on April 18, Hezbollah, fired two Katyusha rockets and eight mortars at Israeli soldiers near the so-called Red Line (the northern limits of the "security zone") from areas about 200 meters southwest and 350 meters southeast of the United Nations compound. 15 minutes later an Israeli unit responded by shelling the area with M-109A2 155 mm guns.<9> According to the Israeli military, thirty eight shells were fired, two-thirds of them equipped with proximity fuses, an anti-personnel mechanism that causes the weapon to explode above the ground. The UN investigation found that 13 shells exploded within or above the compound and 4 "very close to it."<10>

As a result of the shelling, 106 civilians died, with more wounded. Most of the casualties were residents of nearby villages who had fled the conflict, while four were U.N. troops.

Response

Israel immediately expressed regret for the loss of innocent lives, saying that the Hezbollah position and not the UN compound was the intended target of the shelling, and that the compound was hit "due to incorrect targeting based on erroneous data." Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Matan Vilnai stated that the shells hit the base not because they were off target, but because Israeli gunners used outdated maps of the area. He also stated that the gunners miscalculated the firing range of the shells.

Prime Minister Shimon Peres claimed that "We did not know that several hundred people were concentrated in that camp. It came to us as a bitter surprise."<11> Following the attack, Lt.-Gen. Amnon Shahak, Israel's chief of staff, at a press conference in Tel Aviv on April 18 defended the shelling: "I don't see any mistake in judgment… We fought Hezbollah there , and when they fire on us, we will fire at them to defend ourselves… I don't know any other rules of the game, either for the army or for civilians..."<12>. Both the U.S. and Israel accused Hezbollah of "shielding", the use of civilians as a cover for military activities, which is a breach of the laws of war. The U.S. State Department spokesperson, Nicolas Burns stated, "Hezbollah using civilians as cover. That's a despicable thing to do, an evil thing."<13> and Prime Minister Shimon Peres cited the use of human shielding to blame Hezbollah. On April 18 he said, "They used them as a shield, they used the UN as a shield — the UN admitted it."<14> Rabbi Yehuda Amital, a member of Peres' cabinet, called the Qana killings a desecration of God's name (chilul hashem).<15>

The U.N. appointed military advisor Major-General Franklin van Kappen of the Netherlands to investigate the incident. His conclusions were:

(a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 metres apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the Israeli forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.

(b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces.

(c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound.

(d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces.

(e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the Israeli forces claim to have shelled.

(f) Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling.

While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors.<16>


Amnesty International conducted an on-site investigation of the incident in collaboration with military experts, using interviews with UNIFIL staff and civilians in the compound, and posing questions to the IDF, who did not reply. Amnesty concluded, "the IDF intentionally attacked the UN compound, although the motives for doing so remain unclear. The IDF have failed to substantiate their claim that the attack was a mistake. Even if they were to do so they would still bear responsibility for killing so many civilians by taking the risk to launch an attack so close to the UN compound."<17>

Human Rights Watch concurred, "The decision of those who planned the attack to choose a mix of high-explosive artillery shells that included deadly anti-personnel shells designed to maximize injuries on the ground -- and the sustained firing of such shells, without warning, in close proximity to a large concentration of civilians -- violated a key principle of international humanitarian law."<18>

A video recording made by a UNIFIL soldier showed an unmanned drone and a helicopter in the vicinity at the time of the shelling. Uri Dromi, an Israeli government spokesman, confirmed there was a drone in the area, but stated that it did not detect civilians in the compound. The Israel response to the report stated that "The IAF drone shown on videotape did not reach the area until after the UN position was hit and was not an operational component in the targeting of Israeli artillery fire in the area. There was no way in which it could see the camp, especially on a cloudy day," he said. "The shelling took place from six minutes past two to 13 minutes past two. It was only at 17 minutes past two that it was ordered to fly towards Qana. At 21 minutes past two it established contact with the camp for the first time, but the pictures were sketchy because of the cloud cover. It relayed pictures of the camp again at 2:30pm. The Israeli video was shown to the UN in New York . . . before they published their findings." <19>

On December 15, 2005, relatives of those killed filed suit in a Washington, DC, court against former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon for his role in the deaths. The lawsuit was prepared by the Center for Constitutional Rights. Yaalon, who is a visiting scholar in Washington, reportedly refused the papers serving the lawsuit.<20> <21>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_shelling

[Jim__]

11. The problem is ...

while your statement: Anyone who wishes to form an opinion regarding the events that led to the recent deaths of the UN Peacekeeping forces should feel a responsibility to look at all the facts surrounding the incident before coming to a definitive conclusion. is correct. The events you propose, specifically: Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel from a location near a UN outpost.
is NOT a fact, but merely speculation.

This: UN forces pleaded with Israel to stop firing as they were in danger of being hit is a fact, attested to by many people.

And this: Israel ignored those pleas and continued attacking Hezbollah showing little to no concern over whether or not UN forces might be hit in the process according to people present is incorrect. Israel did not ignore those pleas as they were made but acknowledged tham and said they would stop. But, the attack continued for hours after Israel multiple times saying it would stop.

If Israel was attacking Hezbollah at that time, they should have said so. The UN people may have had a chance to react. If the Israelis on the phones had no control over the firing, they should have said so; again it may have given the UN people a chance to react.

You can paint all the rosy scenarios you want, your claim that "maybe" Hexbollah was firing rockets from "near" this post is unsupported. The claims that the UN called Israel and Israel said the attacks would stop is supported by eyewitness accounts.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[atreides1]

12. Well said

The problem with facts is that they can be manipulated.


“They are taking the cover of villages or UN positions to act, hoping this proximity to people will be a problem to Israeli troops when they have to respond.”

While this statement may be true, is their any evidence that a Hezbollah force was near this particular UN position?

We will never know, because it is the Israelis alone who will be conducting the investigation into what happened, and even you have to admit that the investigation has the chance of being biased.



"I do not believe that Israel attempts to kill UN peacekeeping forces on purpose."

The first and second strikes, I can believe were accidents, but after that it was nothing but on purpose. The observers called and received reassurances that it would stop, but the hits just kept on coming. And now the result is that the UN is pulling out its observers.

Those who refuse to even entertain the thought that the Israelis could not have done this intentionally, stand side by side with those who still refuse to believe that Bush and his lot are liars.

All human beings are capable of both heroic and atrocious actions in regard to other human beings, and this includes Hezbollah, the Israelis, and the US.

[oberliner]

16. in reading the UNIFIL reports

It is a fact reported by UNIFIL that Hezbollah has attacked Israeli troops from positions near or adjacent to UN outposts.

I will concede that I cannot say for a fact that I know for sure that Hezbollah was firing from near that UN outpost at that particular time. I should not have presented that as a fact.

It is my conclusion based on the facts that Hezbollah has frequently employed this approach and the fact that intentionally attack a UN outpost with no Hezbollah forces in the area would be, to say the least, a strange tactic for Israel to employ, that Israel was firing on Hezbollah forces which were located near the UN outpost and did not particular care if they hit those UN forces in the process of attacking Hezbollah.

Of the two scenarios:

1. Israel attacked a UN outpost even though there were no Hezbollah in the area.

vs.

2. Israel attacked Hezbollah forces who were engaging them from near a UN outpost and did not particularly concern themselves with the safety of the UN members.

I would argue that option 2 is much more likely.

[atreides1]

23. Thank you

I also think that option 2 is much more likely, but the fact that the Israelis didn't seem to show concern for the UN observers, does lend credence that the continued attacks were therefore intentional, and not an accidental.

[Emit]

13. Yes

Hezbollah guerrillas also endanger U.N. lives by systematically setting up rocket launches alongside U.N. bases, either in the hope that Israel will think twice before firing back, or with the cynical aim of generating bad publicity for Israel by enticing it to bomb peacekeeping troops. They have sidled up to the U.N. bases to strike Israel at least four times in 24 hours this week, officials here said.

Edited to add link: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060728/REPOSITORY/607280303/1043/NEWS01

But what I'm hearing you say is that it is Hezbollah's fault then that Israel attacked and killed UN peacekeepers.

Answer this, in the US, do police or FBI, SWAT, etc. shoot toward the hostage when going for the perp? Maybe I watch too many 'teevee' shows, but, seems to me they hold back, knowing that an innocent person's life is in jeopardy.

IDF could've pulled back. But what the hay... what's a few peacekeepers' lives in the big picture of things. :sarcasm: Gotta' get the terrorists at all cost -- regardless of the fact that they knew there were innocent people there -- peacekeepers. It was a purposeful decision, a sacrificing of non-combatants to achieve their goal. It was very purposeful. They had a choice.


Anyway, you left out the rest of the quote by Pellegrini:

"They're taking the cover of villages or U.N. positions to act, hoping this proximity to people will be a problem to the IDF when they have to respond," said Gen. Alain Pellegrini, force commander of the U.N. troops, who met with reporters inside a bomb shelter. "But the IDF doesn't take this into account."

Fear of attack from Israel shadows life on the base, which has been struck by two Israeli shells since the outbreak of fighting. Top officials here, who spent hours entreating Israel to cease the attacks on their observation post before Tuesday's fatal strike, say they believe it was deliberately destroyed.

"There is at least one thing sure," Pellegrini said. "This objective was very carefully aimed at and very professionally hit."

And, btw, oberliner, I think what has been bothering me over the last few days about your posts is the need for you to define liberals or progressive democrats, as if by through the way you define the terms, we are supposed to fall in line. We do think for ourselves. The first part of this post here is disingenuous, IMO. It is condescending and follows the assumption that we all need to follow your logic, implying all the while that after all, if we consider ourselves liberals or progressives, we'd better follow it, or we're not -- or that instead, if we don't follow your logic we're, what? Radicals? What, oberliner? What are we if we do not fit your brand of liberal or progressive? What is your point with all these pedantic, condescending posts? Inquiring minds want to know.

[oberliner]

14. response to concerns

It is not my inention to define liberals or progressive democrats and to suggest that all posters therefore need to fall in line.

One of my intentions is to argue that those that have a perspective of the conflict which has led to accusations of being Israel apologists, neocons, or worse, are presenting opinions that are held by many prominent progressive Democrats and liberals.

Certainly there is room for a wide range of disagreement on this Israel among progressives. I do not mean to be condescending.

Obviously I have strong opinions on this controversial subject, as many here do. The fact that so many respected Democrats share some of my perspectives I think helps to lend a little support.
Being able to say that this is not just my opinion, this opinion is also shared by Russ Feingold or Ned Lamont or whomever is, I believe a fair and valuable way of bolstering my case.

Just as those who disagree and have a different perception will sometimes quote the analysis and positions of people they respect who share their views to help bolster their case.

We all believe that our opinions on these complex matters are correct. I myself have been re-examining some of my own opinions based on arguments I have seen in numerous posts on this topic.

I guess I am hopeful that others may be convinved to do the same if I can present my own opinions in a convincing fashion.

That's where I am coming from on this.

[jonnyblitz]

15. !!!

:applause: :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonk]

22. Awww, did you have to delete this sub-thread? :(

[tomp]

18. i'm no lawyer but...

...i think reckless disregard for others resulting in death will get you convicted as being responsible for the death. it doesn't have to be intentional to be legally or morally wrong.

one could argue that if they know they're being reckless it's as good as premeditation.

[Wonk]

20. K & R for the replies and discussion, not the OP

[burythehatchet]

24. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - Observers gone

[Catherine Vincent]

25. Israeli forces don't care about hitting civilians much less UNpeacekeepers

imo

[Vinnie From Indy]

26. I am still confused as to what happened.

The IDF initially claimed that it was a case of a targeting mistake and NOW the story appears to be that they were firing on Hezbollah units operating right next to the UN outpost. Which is it?

[Jim__]

27. It sounds like they were not firing at Hezbollah at all.

From Newsweek:

Late Thursday, according to a U.N. source, the IDF explained that an artillery gunner had mistakenly programmed the U.N. post’s coordinates into his weapon’s firing instructions. Whether or not that turns out to be true, the account immediately raised questions. Accident or not, it only adds to Israel's public-relations nightmare.

More...

That doesn't sound much like: Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel from a location near a UN outpost.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. When multiple contradictory explanations are given

the answer is almost invariably: they are all lies. The truth is found by asking what is it they are trying to cover up so desperately that they are engaged in such nonsense?

The truth is the obvious explanation, the only question is why?

[Octafish]

31. kick