UNIFIL finds Hezbollah arms; gunmen scatter peacekeepers

[bemildred]

I just want to add that UNFIL did exactly what it is supposed to do, here.

Armed Hezbollah militants warded off members of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) last month when the peacekeepers discovered a truck carrying weapons and ammunition belonging to the Lebanon-based guerilla group.

The incident was referred to briefly in a semi-yearly report submitted to the UN Security Council by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. The incident was the first time that UNIFIL forces were confronted by armed Hezbollah men south of Lebanon's Litani River, an area which Security Council resolution 1701 prohibits Hezbollah from entering.

According to a government source in Jerusalem, the incident caused great embarrassment for UNIFIL. The source described the incident, explaining that UNIFIL troops on patrol discovered the truck and chased it down and pulled it over. When the UNIFIL troops approached the vehicle, the source said, armed Hezbollah men exited the truck and threatened the troops at gunpoint. The UNIFIL patrol then went back into their cars, according to the source, and returned to their base. The report submitted to the Security Council said the incident occurred on the night between the 30 and 31 of March. "This serious violation of the UN resolution raises concerns," the report said.

The incident was not reported in the media at the time of its occurrence.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976980.html

[azurnoir]

1. The Ha'aretz title is kind of

misleading, unless "finding" arms means having them pointed at you. I do agree however UNFIL acted appropriately, really no cause for embarrassment.

[bemildred]

2. Well, it suggests the truck was carrying arms, too.

UNFIL is supposed to monitor, not to get in firefights.

[azurnoir]

3. Obviously there was something hezbollah

did not want UNFIL seeing, unless they were just stupid, perhaps Hexbollah will release some public statement on this.

From he article though UNFIL never got to look inside the truck, nor did the article say what kind of truck it was, so who knows

[bemildred]

4. Well, it says: "discovered a truck carrying weapons and ammunition belonging".

Now it is true that if you parse that closely it says almost nothing substantive at all, and the facts given don't allow you to state anything at all about what the armed men were up to, since apparently they didn't answer any questions. And there are other activities that go on along that border, smuggling, etc., even with collaboration from Israelis. And it's definitely an "unamed sources in the government" sort of article. So I don't know that we disagree. I was just annoyed at the pretense that these UNFIL people were supposed to get themselves shot up over this.

[azurnoir]

6. We do not disagree

It was Ha'aretz's title and the pretense that goes with it.

[Shaktimaan]

7. shot up over what?

enforcing the UN ceasefire terms like their job description says?

Nope. Someone pulls out a gun and they scatter. All this means is that the UN should not criticize Israel's conduct in the inevitable war between Hez and the IDF. The UN was given a chance to secure the border and they've demonstrated their inability to do the job they insisted on undertaking. What the hell, right? It's not like they're defending their own border. Why seek out any kind of danger when we can just avoid it or retreat from it?

[bemildred]

8. Lebanon - UNIFIL - Mandate

According to Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of 19 March 1978, UNIFIL was established to:

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

According to Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) of 11 August 2006, UNIFIL, in addition to carrying out its mandate under resolutions 425 and 426, shall:

* Monitor the cessation of hostilities;
* Accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the South, including along the Blue Line, as Israel withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon;
* Coordinate its activities referred to in the preceding paragraph (above) with the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel;
* Extend its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons;
* Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area;
* Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel.

By this resolution, the Council also authorized UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind; to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council; and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of Lebanon, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/mandate.html

[Shaktimaan]

9. correct.

and they aren't/can't do it.

right now Lebanon is in serious violation of the cease-fire agreement and UNIFIL does not seem too perturbed by it. In fact, before they even got there France said that it did not intend on trying to disarm Hezbollah or even prevent them from rearming. So all this means is that eventually it will fall to Israel to do it.

I don't blame UNIFIL for not wanting to do this job, BTW. It isn't as though Israel was just reckless and incompetent, engaging Hezbollah will mean lots of civilian and military casualties. And since Hezbollah isn't attacking France why should they get involved? Well, the problem is that they did. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Eventually Hezbollah is going to attack Israel and when Israel retaliates the UN will almost certainly demonstrate its trademark hypocricy by denouncing it.

[bemildred]

10. They are not supposed to enforce anything.

So it's a bit silly to berate them for not doing what they are not supposed to do. In fact it 's a bit ungrateful, because they are doing a favor by putting themselves in harms way to monitor the cease fire.

[Shaktimaan]

11. um...

* Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area;
* Assist the Government of Lebanon, at its request, in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry in Lebanon without its consent of arms or related materiel.

So, are they doing this?

ps- I edited my above post.

[bemildred]

12. Yes, they are. nt

[Shaktimaan]

13. really?

Because instead of establishing an area between the Blue Line and the Litani river free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area, it looked like they were running away from said armed personnel.

Look, the ceasefire calls for Hezbollah to be disarmed which ultimately falls to Lebanon to do. But Lebanon has UNIFIL to aid it and a responsibility to request their help if they are unable to fulfill the terms of the ceasefire they signed. Now UNIFIL has already said that they will NOT do anything to disarm Hezbollah, despite the fact that their mandate clearly calls for it. So the situation is pretty straightforward. No one who promised to do so actually has the will or desire to try and stop Hezbollah from rearming, much less disarm them, which is a problem because now Lebanon is in clear violation of the cease fire and a new war between Israel and Hezbollah seems inevitable at some point in the future.

The final text said that the UN force would be able to “take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article606768.ece

How they're going to do this if they are unwilling to risk engaging the militants who last began the hostile activities is anyone's guess. My guess is that they're not going to. Why UNIFIL's personnel was expanded to 15,000 people and they were given heavy weapons is really a mystery since all they really needed was a few crates of running shoes. It's kind of a funny joke in a way... I mean, we need someone who will follow through on this and ensure that Hezbollah gets disarmed and the cease fire terms are upheld so who do we call in? The French! I mean come on!

What I can't understand is how you think that UNIFIL is fulfilling its mandate. Read this again... Assist the Lebanese armed forces in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area. Now read the OP again. How exactly is it that you think that UNIFIL hasn't totally and completely crapped out on what is arguably the most important part of their mandate, disarming the terrorists who started the war in the first place?

[Shaktimaan]

14. Where are you getting this idea that

UNIFIL is not supposed to enforce anything? Their mandate says otherwise quite plainly.

[bemildred]

15. The word "enforce" is not anywhere in the mandate.

It is all in the form of "assist" the Lebanese. They are not combatants, or intended to be combatants. Your understanding of the meaning of the mandate is wrong. Your understanding or the meaning of "hostile activities" is wrong too.

[Shaktimaan]

16. you don't say...

The mandate seems crystal clear to me. You are saying that my understanding of it is wrong, OK, but then where are you getting the "correct" understanding of the mandate from? Same goes for hostile activities. It is fine if you disagree with me, especially if it is not just a difference of opinion but something factual that we can resolve one way or the other. But you are just insisting that UNIFIL's mandate means something specific without anything to back it up. You are saying that my understanding of several terms if incorrect, without explaining your understanding or giving any support for it. For instance...

They are not combatants, or intended to be combatants.

Then why did they expand their number of troops from 2,000 to 13,000 and bring in artillery and other heavy weapons right after UN security council resolution 1701?

As it stands now Lebanon is not living up to their commitment of disarming Hezbollah. They are the ones who are ultimately responsible, if they have not enlisted UNIFIL's help then UNIFIL can't do much about it. Not that they would anyway. However the situation is currently one where the main result of UNIFIL's deployment is protecting Hezbollah from Israel, allowing them time to rearm and entrench themselves to prepare and plan for further conflict with Israel.

What was the point of insisting on a cease fire if no one had any likelihood of meeting the basic tenets of it once Israel pulled out? The new resolution states that UNIFIL can “take all the necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces, and as it deems with its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilised for hostile activities of any kind.” How can they ensure that without using "combatants?"

[bemildred]

17. There is no "factual" way to resolve the meaning of the words of the mandate,

You say it's crystal clear, yet it is I that am not surprised by events. The mandate, as written, and the course of events back me up. But you prefer to call them names and think it is all some failure or mistake on their part.

They have weapons because they are allowed to defend themselves.

Lebanon has no commitment to disarm Hezbollah, and in any case neither UNFIL or Lebanon has that capability. The IDF could not do it, what makes you think UNFIL or the Lebanese army can? Given that the facts are such, how fatuous is it to continue to insist they do it anyway?

The point of the cease fire was to stop the fighting and killing and get the IDF out of the mess it was in. You need to pay attention to the "and as it deems with its capabilities". That is permission to do as it thinks fit in pursuit of certain ends, not an order to do anything at all. It performs it functions by monitoring and reporting on any "hostile activities" in it's area of interest, as it sees fit. Period. That is it's only function. If they get in fights with Hezbollah, they will get their asses kicked and not be able to perform their function. If they get in fights with the IDF, they will get their asses kicked and not be able to perform their function. They have more men to cover a larger area and to cover larger political asses. Etc.

[Igel]

5. Be embarrassed and write

meaningless reports about how God's Party is re-arming?

I think the UN could spend its money much more wisely.

[bemildred]

18. Israel: UNIFIL is hiding information about Hezbollah from Security Council

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is intentionally concealing information about Hezbollah activities south of the Litani River in Lebanon to avoid conflict with the group, senior sources in Jerusalem have said. In the last six months there have been at least four cases in which UNIFIL soldiers identified armed Hezbollah operatives, but did nothing and did not submit full reports on the incidents to the UN Security Council.

The Israel Defense Forces and the Foreign Ministry are reportedly very angry about UNIFIL's actions in recent months, especially about the fact that its commander, Major General Claudio Graziano, is said to be leniently interpreting his mission, as assigned by Security Council Resolution 1701, passed at the end of the Second Lebanon War.

Senior IDF officials said recently behind closed doors that Graziano is "presenting half-truths so as to avoid embarrassment and conflict with Hezbollah," and that Resolution 1701 has been increasingly eroded in recent months. A senior government source in Jerusalem said that, "There is an attempt by various factors in the UN to mislead the Security Council and whitewash everything having to do with the strengthening of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon." The source also said, "The policy of cover-ups and whitewashing will not last long and, hopefully, now that the concealing of information has been revealed, things will change."

Israeli anger reached boiling point over a week ago after the release of a new report by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with regard to another Lebanon-related Security Council resolution, 1559. The report briefly mentioned an incident at the beginning of March in which UNIFIL soldiers encountered unidentified armed men, and included no additional details. Officials in Israel, familiar with the incident, reportedly were aware that the Security Council had not been apprised of numerous details of the incident.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978382.html