Irish FM says Israel fired at UN soldiers moving UN soldier's bodies

[bigtree]

27/07/2006

Irish army officer - ‘I told Israel about UN base fears’

BY DAVID LYNCH

The most senior Irish army officer in Lebanon warned Israel six times on Tuesday that its bombs were landing close to a United Nations base.

Israeli authorities ignored the warnings and later struck the southern Lebanon UN base, killing four observers.

Lieutenant Colonel John Molloy phoned the Israeli Defence Forces six times on Tuesday.

In a widely welcomed move, foreign minister Dermot Ahern summoned Israeli ambassador Daniel Megiddo to a meeting yesterday.

Mr Ahern said it was extremely disquieting that Israelis had fired on Egyptian UN soldiers as the UN personnel tried to retrieve their colleagues’ bodies.

http://www.dailyireland.com/home.tvt?_scope=DailyIreland/Content/News&id=11938&opp=1&_ticket=LHKDALOLO9M2TRRIVPPE9NTHLZIZBHSJ7TRFOOUCHPUFFPU9CHVRG13EIOQNANSEANYBEGSGW4UUHONCN15DALNNOPRGUT4SSNNADYNWNKLAFUXFURUQCB99ANWR9LLGGGSG00QFIRYV8F62XZ

[CuteNFuzzy]

1. obviously the peacekeepers were deliberately targeted

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Possibly. But why?

Seems to have generated additional negative PR.

[bigtree]

8. one motive that's been suggested is that they were observers

of the military action on both sides, Hizbollah and Israel.

The speculation is that they may have been thought to witness atrocities that someone didn't want recorded by the international observer team.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. From what I can deduce, they ( the victims),.......

were in constant telephone contact with their UN superiors.

Certainly if they were witness to atrocities, they would have communicated this to their superiors. Near as I can tell (from the media coverage), no one at the UN has hinted at this.

I'm not saying this is impossible or even unlikely; it just doesn't quite add-up.

At this point, anyway.

[bigtree]

12. someone may have *thought* they witnessed/reported some

They way to cover that would be to take out the observers.

The sticking point in these attacks seems to be the 'precision-guided' missile which struck them. That's where the assumption of 'deliberately-targeted' comes from

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. But they were under bombardment for several HOURS,

near as I can tell. Prompting multiple calls between them and their superiors and between the UN superiors and IDF.

If IDF was determined to kill them,( because they witnessed atrocities) why did it take several hours of bombardment to achieve the goal? Why not just precision-bomb them from the get-go?

[bigtree]

14. looks more like an accident in the chaos, rather than in isolation?

:shrug:

Btw, what ABOUT that firing on the UN soldiers retrieving their slaughtered fellow soldier's bodies from the rubble?

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. It's despicable and a war crime.... if true.

The NY Times has a curiously-written account of the aftermath-aspect.( hard copy, no link) Some or all of the UN spokespeople have retracted or 'clarified" their initial statements after consultation with Amb. Bolton who says:

"We should not make this statement ( official UN statement re. the incident) a backdoor way of getting into a ceasefire...."


So, officially, a ceasefire is now a bad thing.

[bigtree]

17. I think the strident accusations are designed to pressure the Israelis

into taking stronger action. I don't think they are insincere, but I think they reflect the UN's frustration with Israel's continued collateral killings.

the aftermath with the firing on the rescuers is beyond the pale, no matter who was on the ground.

[w4rma]

20. Good grief man. It's true already. Believe it. Quit searching for the

next excuse. Just accept the situation and deal with it.

[mom cat]

18. The bombardment of the UN site lasted from the morning till 7PM

This was no accident!

[Toots]

10. Same reason fascist cops in US don't want you taking their pictures

No witnesses........

[malaise]

2. Meanwhile

Bolton et al continue to spew lies about an accident.

[Tyler Durden]

3. Comment heard from IDF on NPR last night:

Paraphrase: The UN observers there aren't exactly impartial anyway.

What.The.Fuck.Com????? You didn't KNOW they were UN (even though an Irish UN official TOLD YOU THEY WERE. 6 FUCKING TIMES.) You bombed them all day, and then TARGETTED their BUNKER when they tried to escape the bombardment, but it didn't matter because they "weren't exactly impartial"???

Fuck the IDF. ALONG with Hizbollah AND the US.

[bigtree]

4. another official mention

Jane Holl Lute, assistant secretary general for peacekeeping said the Israelis continued to fire even as rescue workers were digging through the rubble to see if anyone had survived.

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=5f691619-ef23-4a68-b565-a3780773ee1e

[Selatius]

5. I have heard notions in the UN of war crimes charges for both sides

We already know what Hezbollah has been doing, but if there will be charges against the senior leadership of the Israeli government, this may or may not be it depending if high level commanders knowingly ignored the warnings or were simply guilty of incredibly gross negligence.

[bigtree]

6. neither Israel, nor Hizbollah, have signed the international agreement

for the body who would hold them accountable for such crimes

[smacky44]

9. And the US dare not condemn this action in the UN?

We are people without a country or at least a people without a government that cares about its people.

[rman]

15. The US does dare to block UN condemnation of this action

U.S. blocks UN statement condemning attack on observers

Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS — The United States blocked the UN Security Council from issuing a statement that would have condemned Israel's bombing of a UN post on the Lebanon border in which four military observers were killed.

Several diplomats said the United States objected to one paragraph, which said the council “condemns any deliberate attack against UN personnel and emphasizes that such attacks are unacceptable.” U.S. diplomats refused comment and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton was in Washington preparing for a reconfirmation hearing before the Senate.

The diplomats said the United States opposed both the condemnation and the suggestion the attack was deliberate. Israel vehemently denies it hit the UN observer post intentionally.

The draft proposed by China alluded to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's statement late Tuesday that Israel appeared to have struck the site deliberately — an accusation Israel vehemently denies. China softened the text, which initially expressed shock that Israel apparently deliberately targeted the post.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060727.wunblock0727/BNStory/International/home

[Igel]

19. There are still things about this that don't add up.

One doesn't target a bunker and attack it more than 14 times (I've heard the figure '21' bandied about, as well) before actually hitting it. One doesn't continue to attack it after it's destroyed.

The "precision guided weapons" quote finally traces back to two documents, as far as I can tell: a press release that referred to 'aerial bombardment' and Annan's statement that the bunker was subject to 'aerial attack'. All else seems to be the reporter's interpretation--Israel only has artillery shells and precision guided weapons, right?

[bigtree]

21. one hit would signal a mistake

sustained attacks on a known UN position suggest to me there was a deliberate effort to take the target out.

[Igel]

22. Yes,

but 21 strikes to take out a bunker is insane. Not 21 projectiles, mind you, but 21 attacks, involving many times 21 missiles. Taking the number 14 doesn't help. It shows gross incompetence on the part of any military that needs to stage that many strikes for a single, well-marked bunker. It shows gross incompetence on the part of any commander that would order *observers* to stay put; that commander believes in paper and words more than he's interested in the safety of his monitors. It also belies the claim of 'precision guided missiles'. Continuing bombardment after the target is destroyed is also odd: it seems that while the Egyptian rescuers were there, attacks continued intermittently in the area, but again, the bunker itself wasn't hit.

I agree, that many strikes shows a deliberate attempt to take the target out. But if one missile in 21, or even 14, different attacks strikes the bunker, it leaves open the possibility that the bunker wasn't the target.

The UN is saying that there was no other action nearby. If there was action nearby--and a few days before there apparently were Hezbollah folk nearby--then the commander was culpably negligent.

As I said, something's missing. Is the Israeli so incompetent with its "precision guided missiles" and artillery that it takes 14 or 21 different attacks to hit a single bunker? I'd argue that the number of civilian dead argue against that, it's low for many thousands of sorties. Were Hezbollah targets nearby? Were the UN observers in a position to even know if there were Hezbollah militia targets near them, and if they were, would the commander provide the information that would show he was incompetent? Was it a missile or a shell that nailed the bunker? If a missile, did it come from a jet or helicopter? Was it with the Israeli army, as one report says, or an Israeli military liaison officer, as another report says, that the UNIFIL commander spoke?

I have far too many questions to be able to think about how I'd assign responsibility.

[bigtree]

23. I'd like to know why, if in fact, they weren't in a position to know where

Hizbollah was operating. The e-mail suggests they weren't shy about reporting WHEN there was Hizbollah activity in their scope. Apparently that type of report from them, that would indicate activity in their area, didn't immediately*preceed this bombing. On the contrary, they were warning the Israelis off of their position.